A couple of people have misconstrued what I wrote, so I want to clarify. What I wrote is meant to help inform sources about how to speak to a journalist safely so that you don't make a mistake and think something is off the record when it isn't. 1/8https://twitter.com/KimZetter/status/1015988397184200704 …
-
-
I am 100% sure than no agreement was made that talking to a 'journalist' would result in said journalist becoming a source for law enforcement. Other journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal sources. Your call, your conscience.
-
Why are you so sure what I brought to the FBI was stuff he told me?
-
Because you said so. "On its face, I broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism, but what he was doing should cause a source to lose protection,” Wheeler told me in a lengthy phone interview.
-
Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.
-
Breaking the cardinal rule of journalism is the key factor here. Anyone who trusts reporters, or bloggers, or activists pretending to be journalists, to hold confidences are fools when it can be broken cavalierly because of a difference in ideology or politics.
-
On what basis do you claim I had an ideological difference with this person? At least as far as he told me, we agreed ideologically.
-
Don't know what you were thinking, but I have read what you have said. "But what motivated her recent revelation that she went to the FBI has plenty to do with politics: She is disgusted by the way House Republicans are, in her view, weaponizing their oversight responsibilities"
-
Yes. Because they make me and others like me less safe only because we reported on damage done to the US. Do you consider support for the US ideological?
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.