Thursday, December 22, 2005
Irresponsibility at the NY Times
The New York Times, not content with giving Al Qaeda an early Christmas present by revealing details of how COMINT is gathered, has seen fit to compromise undercover police operations as well.
But they're not even content with that. The New York Times is actually publishing fully recognizable face photos, revealing the identity of undercover police officers, and possibly jeopardizing their safety, exposing them to retribution by thugs and radicals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?hp&ex=1135314000&en=10dca8926beae1ec&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Have these morons lost their minds? Have they no sense of perspective here?
There is nothing untoward about having a police officer suit up and ride around in plainclothes with bicicle protestors. If their argument is that they are on a public street and have a right to use the thoroughfare without a permit, then they have no reasonable expectation that the police will not do the same thing.
Nobody's constitutional rights were violated in any way. If the story had to have been told, it could have been told without blowing the cover of individual officers. There is no public interest in this story that would justify the endangerment of undercover officers.
Once again, the New York Times manages to plumb the depths of journalistic ethics and still come up wanting.
Splash, out
Jason
But they're not even content with that. The New York Times is actually publishing fully recognizable face photos, revealing the identity of undercover police officers, and possibly jeopardizing their safety, exposing them to retribution by thugs and radicals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?hp&ex=1135314000&en=10dca8926beae1ec&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Have these morons lost their minds? Have they no sense of perspective here?
There is nothing untoward about having a police officer suit up and ride around in plainclothes with bicicle protestors. If their argument is that they are on a public street and have a right to use the thoroughfare without a permit, then they have no reasonable expectation that the police will not do the same thing.
Nobody's constitutional rights were violated in any way. If the story had to have been told, it could have been told without blowing the cover of individual officers. There is no public interest in this story that would justify the endangerment of undercover officers.
Once again, the New York Times manages to plumb the depths of journalistic ethics and still come up wanting.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
