So, no, you don't know what agreements were made?
-
-
Trying not be flippant, but yes, it is treachery, a violation of trust, to violate a fundamental rule of journalism, which is to protect sources, not become a source for law enforcement based on those interactions. "On its face, I broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism"
-
Ok. So your ideology is that I should let significant ongoing damage to the US happen even with someone who is doing a bunch of other things that break source/reporting rules? Gotcha. The pro-attack America ideology.
-
Your opinion is, based on your words, driven by political and ideological differences with the Administration and the majority party in Congress. To betray a trust with that rationale is activism, not journalism.
-
No. My opinion is based on my judgment--since confirmed AFAIK--that a person with whom I shared ideology was doing significant damage to the US. You find my actions treachery for trying to prevent that damage.
-
You are ALSO affirmatively arguing that I and others should face physical and digital risks for trying to prevent damage to the United States.
-
Nice attempts at a justification for violating core ethics, but the straw-man argument combined with a specious "two wrongs make a right" justification indicates that activism, not journalism, was the driving force here. I do appreciate that you think you did the right thing.
-
And do you also appreciate that you're affirmatively defending the House GOP (not Senate ones, significantly) efforts that make me and others less safe?
-
The do what journalists do: write about it. Not snitch a source, who trusted you, to the FBI because it furthers an activist narrative. That is where we disagree. I was federal LE for a time, and I appreciate sources, especially motivated ones. But a reporter?
- 7 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.