anonymity...not authorized...???

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/11/2007 10:35:31 AM · #1

From a news article today; "...said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information."

So many times you see this in the news where someone in a position of authority (an official) has knowledge of something and passes it along. This "official" isn't supposed to say anything because they aren't "authorized", yet here it is (insert unauthorized release of info) for all to read.

I don't get this. If a person is in a position of authority and has been trusted to keep it quiet, why do they still seem eager to talk about it? Are they getting paid $$$? Do they covet the "power" they have with this info? Does this make them feel "special"?

Every day you can find this happening somewhere. Just bugs me.

Ok, off the soapbox now. Feel free to continue this, or not. :D

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/11/2007 10:38:20 AM · #2

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I don't get this.

Yes, that certainly seems odd. There's a very good reason, but I'm not authorized to reveal it. ;-)

01/11/2007 10:46:13 AM · #3

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't get this.

Yes, that certainly seems odd. There's a very good reason, but I'm not authorized to reveal it. ;-)

Well, at least there's one person with authority that has some sense of integrity. :D

01/11/2007 11:11:21 AM · #4

Many times, I believe it's because the individual doesn't necessarily agree with the implications of said knowledge, but is not willing to lose his/her position taking a stand against it. Just a thought... at least that's how I've seen it come to pass many times.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/11/2007 11:25:26 AM · #5

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I can see that.

Why say anything at all? If the person has been entrusted with that knowledge and isn't supposed to release it, then basically they're breaking employment rules at a minimum, or breaking the law if they have clearance and the info is non-public.

Or, geez, how about basic values to do what you say you're going to do and be a standup citizen - integrity and all of that?

I guess it depends on the info, but if your not supposed to talk about...

I'm not anti "whistle-blower", I'm talking about things that are protected for good reason. "Whistle-blower" things like corporate fraud, etc...may be hidden, but not necessarily protected.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/11/2007 11:29:55 AM · #6

I've always suspected that such things were intentional leaks and that language is the "catch all" phrase that journalists "respect."

01/11/2007 11:35:58 AM · #7

Originally posted by nards656:

I've always suspected that such things were intentional leaks and that language is the "catch all" phrase that journalists "respect."

Could be, you sure see it often enough.

01/11/2007 11:36:52 AM · #8

Originally posted by nards656:

I've always suspected that such things were intentional leaks and that language is the "catch all" phrase that journalists "respect."

That's true too and is a valuable part of the propaganda machine. People tend to "listen" to "leaked" info differently than official statements on the matter. And as par for the course will listen to official follow-ups on the "leaked" info more readily.

01/11/2007 11:49:21 AM · #9

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I'm not anti "whistle-blower", I'm talking about things that are protected for good reason. "Whistle-blower" things like corporate fraud, etc...may be hidden, but not necessarily protected.

If you are talking issues of national security, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about info on a criminal case, I also agree...

I guess my assessment of the matter is in which way the leaked info affects people. If someone were to leak strategies on the war in Iraq and could possibly get troops killed, I would be mad as hell at the source.

I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the media should be ethical about what they publish. Ofcourse, we know how far media ethics go....

Message edited by author 2007-01-11 11:51:33.

Raynox Pro Digital 0.66X Wide Angle Conversion

01/11/2007 12:00:39 PM · #10

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I'm not anti "whistle-blower", I'm talking about things that are protected for good reason. "Whistle-blower" things like corporate fraud, etc...may be hidden, but not necessarily protected.

If you are talking issues of national security, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about info on a criminal case, I also agree...

I guess my assessment of the matter is in which way the leaked info affects people. If someone were to leak strategies on the war in Iraq and could possibly get troops killed, I would be mad as hell at the source.

I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the media should be ethical about what they publish. Ofcourse, we know how far media ethics go....

Sounds like we're on about the same page. :)

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I am feeling a bit gullible at the moment. Silly me, I had faith in the majority of our "officials". Should know better by now. :/

RolandB

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/11/2007 12:05:37 PM · #11

My feeling about this is that it's just a way of "testing" how the public will react to the news. Kinda like the old "Raise up a flag and see who salutes!"

If the reaction is too negative, they can always change their position BEFORE it's official because they have deniability..

Kinda STINKS!

01/11/2007 12:51:21 PM · #12

One of my favorite movie quotes and quite relevant to this thread:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it. - Agent K from Men in Black

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

01/15/2007 11:52:19 AM · #13

Originally posted by RolandB:

Well, here's another example today. Minor that it is in the overall scope of world events...who gains from leaking this info? What was this official's incentive to do what he's not authorized to do?

bold/underline added for emphasis.

"When agents arrived Thursday evening, Devlin wouldn't let them into his apartment, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation, who refused to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the case."

Quote excerpt comes from this article: Uncle: Rescued boy only talking with FBI

giega

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/15/2007 12:05:34 PM · #14

What if there isn't such an official at all? Just the media trying to get the story out and add some credibility?

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

01/15/2007 12:08:54 PM · #15

Originally posted by giega:

What if there isn't such an official at all? Just the media trying to get the story out and add some credibility?

Feasible I suppose, but do you think the media would really "quote" a source that doesn't exist? If found out later it would knock a big hole in the reliability factor of the AP writer.

As for getting the story out, there's no shortage on this one.

giega

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/15/2007 12:11:20 PM · #16

I guess many times I take everything with a grain of salt.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/15/2007 12:15:08 PM · #17

Originally posted by giega:

I guess many times I take everything with a grain of salt.

Not impractical with the over abundance of media outlets and sources available today I suppose. :)

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/15/2007 12:20:43 PM · #18

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I don't get this. If a person is in a position of authority and has been trusted to keep it quiet, why do they still seem eager to talk about it? Are they getting paid $$$? Do they covet the "power" they have with this info? Does this make them feel "special"?

Every day you can find this happening somewhere. Just bugs me.

Don't let it bug you...

Most often, it's someone who knows the information being leaked, and they are leaking it because of some moral or ethical reason. News media won't generally print 'leaked' information unless the person who collected it knows and can guarantee the source is valid. The source isn't getting paid and there is no power to be gained simply because they are an 'anonymous' source.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/15/2007 12:30:11 PM · #19

If those who leak sensitive info had their heads chopped off a lot of that crap would stop.