For John, BLUF: It goes on, but there needs to be some pushback in the name of ethics. Nothing to see here; just move along.
By Reporter Phil Stewart, for Reuters, on Friday, 7 July 2017.
From the article:
The officials who disclosed to Reuters the precise nature and timing of the upcoming test spoke on condition of anonymity.So, is this a good leak or a bad leak? Is this an authorized leak or an unauthorized leak?
Who can tell? I think it is a good leak, an authorized leak, but maybe not. The art of propaganda is to mix in those discordant themes along with a lot of banal truth.
I am probably naive, but I think DC needs a new set of ethics, which would include the idea that one does not “leak” but rather stands up and stands behind what one says.
What is gained by the anonymity with regard to this article? Little I can see, except maybe a staff type or even lower level leader speaking out of school so as to curry favor or to get around a leadership they either don’t like or don’t respect.
If we really believe in transparency, it being honest, we need to stop the leaking and start standing behind what we are willing to say and keeping our mouth shut if we are not willing to be named the source.
Regards — Cliff
No comments:
Post a Comment