CNN Reporter Reveals CIA-Benghazi Connection: Is He 'Aiding The Enemy'?

from the it's-called-journalism dept

Between the Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning situations, we keep hearing claims that those two are guilty of violating the espionage act but that also those who helped published what they leaked are guilty too. There’s still an ongoing investigation into Wikileaks, and various government supporters have suggested that reporter Glenn Greenwald should be arrested as well. So, with CNN’s Jake Tapper breaking some news about CIA operatives on the ground during the Benghazi attacks, Matt Yglesias makes an important, if satirical point: is this “great journalism” or is it “aiding the enemy”?.

Obviously, it’s the former, but how can people argue that the reporting on the CIA revelations is great journalism, while the reporting on NSA surveillance or US military excesses are somehow “aiding the enemy”? All are disclosing secret or confidential information about the US government and its actions. All are very much in the public interest. But, for whatever reason, many people seem to want to pretend that Greenwald writing about the NSA is somehow different from Tapper revealing what the CIA was up to.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CNN Reporter Reveals CIA-Benghazi Connection: Is He 'Aiding The Enemy'?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: @ "Rikuo", yapping at shadows again.

That’s not me.


This is the kind of silly, off-topic, sheerly pointless ad hom yapping that I like to see here.

But does me give me opportunity to use another tagline:

Mike’s fanboy-trolls imitate him by taking no position except the pejorative.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo", yapping at shadows again.

Okay, given the icons next to your names, you’re more than likely not the same person. AC up above? I apologize for thinking you were OOTB.

OOTB…how can it be an ad-hom when it is in fact TRUE? You have dozens of times yapped on about copyright coming from Common Law, which, again, is not true.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 @ "Rikuo", yapping at shadows again.

how can it be an ad-hom when it is in fact TRUE?

In all fairness… it is an ad-hom, just a less egregious one.

An ad-hom is when you’re trying to disprove someone’s argument by attacking their character rather than the argument. That character attack can be 100% accurate, but it’s still an ad-hom. The logical problem with ad-homs is that they don’t address the actual point being discussed, and so are irrelevant.

Anonymous Coward says:

The only ones that want to claim journalism is spying are those being embarrassed and can’t come up with any other reason to stifle the information outflow.

Face it, the majority of government leaders either through their words or actions are complicit in this lawbreaking spying. That starts at the top and goes right on down to the independent contractors making big bucks off the spy/data collection business.

Funny when news releases are in favor of the executive branch no one wants to head hunt for another victim. Take someone that is whistle blowing on wrong doing and suddenly, look there’s an espionage agent. It’s pretty plain what is going on here and the actions are speaking louder than any lying words coming out of Washington to the contrary.

RyanNerd (profile) says:

What I'm most amazed about is

that is was a CNN journalist that broke this news. My wife loves CNN and it is on in my house nearly 24/7. Which means I spend a good amout of my time yelling at my TV. I can’t stand the drivel that comes out of the talking heads of the corporate and government sponsored journalists and CNN has become one of the worst.

Anonymous Coward says:

Is CNN now adapting “Rules of Engagement” to reality?

While it may have been a pleasure to shout infringement, it is more appropriate to shout “what the hell is going on?”. Is NSA trying to change the newscycle to a more political mudthrowing-friendly theme instead of the, for them, extremely awkward “surveillance and what to do about it”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Government prosecution comes down to politics. As long as one major party can use your journalism as ammunition to promote its preexisting conclusions and/or deride the other party, it’s all peachy. Upset both, and it’s a prison cell or exile. Is it any surprise that so many self-professed ‘real’ journalists tend to stick to talking points and sound bites?

Anonymous Coward says:

There Is a Difference between Manning & Jake Tapper

Government sources provided information directly to Tapper. Tapper did not crack any passwords or make copies of any classified files for which he did not have a bona fide need to know. What Tapper did qualifies as investigative journalism.

What Manning did qualifies as braking his word, breaking his contract, gaining access to files he had no legitimate reason to access, and distributing classified files to non-
authorized persons.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: There Is a Difference between Manning & Jake Tapper

And your opinion of those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution who regularly violate it for political “contributions”?

If your gonna target Manning, lets apply it evenly shall we?
I am guessing that if Manning had gotten paid you’d be screaming so much louder, why are you silent on the rest of the Government who get PAID to violate their oath?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: There Is a Difference between Manning & Jake Tapper

I did not “target” Manning, the post did. I merely continued the discussion using the same people the post mentioned. However, the point was not violation of the Constitution, which had nothing to do with what Manning did.

Manning violated a contractual obligation, a working directive, several laws, and a long-established rule of working with classified information. The article contrasted what Manning with the actions of a journalist, not other members of government, so it would be inappropriate for me to change the nature of the post with irrelevant comparisons.

The journalist did not have a contractual obligation with the government.

The journalist did not crack any passwords (based on the reference article).

The journalist did not make any copies of files from any government computers.

The journalist did not distribute information that he was told was classified to anyone, much less to anyone outside the United States.

The journalist, as far I was able to tell from the article, did not violate any laws.

Manning versus Jake Tapper? No comparison at all. One was an oath-breaking, self-aggrandizing, law-breaking criminal who will now pay for his crimes. The other was an investigative journalist using various resources to analyze a situation and to report on the situation, which is what journalists do, and Tapper apparently did not need to break any oaths or laws in the process. Tapper scores!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...