HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why The Times Published D...

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:07 PM

Why The Times Published Details of the Whistle-Blower's Identity

Why The Times Published Details of the Whistle-Blower’s Identity

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/reader-center/whistle-blower-identity.html

Our executive editor, Dean Baquet, addresses readers’ concerns about the decision to publish information on a person who is central to the Trump impeachment inquiry.

By The New York Times

Sept. 26, 2019
Updated 7:34 p.m. ET

On Thursday, The Times published exclusive details about the identity of the whistle-blower whose claims led Democrats to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Trump this week. (The article reported that the whistle-blower is a C.I.A. officer who was previously detailed to work at the White House and had expertise on Ukraine.)

Many readers, including some who work in national security and intelligence, have criticized The Times’s decision to publish the details, saying it potentially put the person’s life in danger and may have a chilling effect on would-be whistle-blowers.

<snip>

The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding. The president himself has called the whistle-blower’s account a “political hack job.”

We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower — including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House — because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.


We welcome your thoughts in the comments. We’ll be reading them.





It works for me. Part of whistle blowing almost in all instances requires signing your name to it in a forthright manner. This information needs to come out. It would seem to me that identifying the whistle blower at least to some degree would have a "moderating" effect on someone determined to cause the whistle blower to disappear or shut up.

Just saying.
Very very little more at the link.

21 replies, 1679 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why The Times Published Details of the Whistle-Blower's Identity (Original post)
marble falls Sep 2019 OP
dalton99a Sep 2019 #1
marble falls Sep 2019 #3
ArcticFox Sep 2019 #2
madaboutharry Sep 2019 #4
dweller Sep 2019 #5
lame54 Sep 2019 #6
dalton99a Sep 2019 #7
marble falls Sep 2019 #13
lame54 Sep 2019 #14
marble falls Sep 2019 #17
lame54 Sep 2019 #18
MFGsunny Sep 2019 #8
dalton99a Sep 2019 #9
maxsolomon Sep 2019 #21
RockRaven Sep 2019 #10
ecstatic Sep 2019 #12
jeffreyi Sep 2019 #15
meadowlander Sep 2019 #19
Corgigal Sep 2019 #11
librechik Sep 2019 #16
rusty fender Sep 2019 #20

Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:11 PM

1. Weak. Dean Baquet goes to great lengths to protect White House aides

but not our intelligence professionals?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:18 PM

3. He doesn't run into "our intellegence professionals" socially at 'the club'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:17 PM

2. Not buying it

It's clear from the way the complaint is written that this is a very sophisticated individual. The published details do less to inform on credibility and more to lead to a specific identity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:18 PM

4. The explanation as to why they published the

information seems rather weak to me. “We wanted people to know that the whistleblower is credible.” That’s bullshit. The IG stated he/she is credible. The document is well written by someone with vast knowledge of Ukrainian politics, demonstrating credibility. I don’t need the NYT to tell me about credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:18 PM

5. CBS news tonite

Mike Morrell said the same thing, his analysis was due to the terse writing , bulletpoints etc it had to be CIA analyst ...
so it's going to be repeated elsewhere
NYT just got there 1st

✌🏼

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:22 PM

6. How many decades before Deep Throat's identity was verified...

What b.s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:23 PM

7. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 10:39 AM

13. Deep Throat was whistleblowing to the WaPo. This one is reporting to the Fed ...

There are some different issues between them including freedom of the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #13)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 11:49 AM

14. The NYT's claims that...

The whistleblower needs to outed to be credible

History says differently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 12:17 PM

17. At some point he needs to named. Something about facing our accusers ...

whether we're accused rightly or wrongly. I read that somewhere on an old document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #17)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 02:14 PM

18. The presedence set is the opposite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:30 PM

8. I will take the CREDIBILITY bestowed on the whistleblower by intelligence IG. TYVM.


I call B.S. on Dean Baquet. I bet my last shiny penny he gave a bigger damn about NYT being a scoop first rather than the "credibility" to the patriotic whistleblower. He can package crap in any fig leaf he wants but it still stinks. REALLY????? NYT is the self-designated, BUT REDUNDANT, source for bestowing credibility????? I will take the Inspector General's without danger to whistleblower.

You can only fool some of the people some of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFGsunny (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:42 PM

9. The NYT is more about celebrity journalism than credible or responsible journalism











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #9)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 03:24 PM

21. Cherry picking

They're fallable, definitely.

You could post 8x as many headlines that would make a Repuke apoplectic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:58 PM

10. Bullshit, Dean Baquet, you lying amoral goon.

The NYT could have chosen to -- as Baquet claims their goal was -- "provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible" by using Baquet's own words of "including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House" rather than what the article did which was say "that the whistle-blower is a C.I.A. officer who was previously detailed to work at the White House and had expertise on Ukraine."

The article MASSIVELY narrowed down the possible ID of the whistleblower by probably two orders of magnitude just based on that one sentence -- "CIA" instead of "nonpolitical agency," "previously detailed to the White House" instead of "intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House," and specifying "had expertise on Ukraine." That is a difference of hundreds of people versus a handful. They virtually outed this person, who now literally has a price on their ID (Wohl/Burkman) if not their head (Trump's rhetoric), for little-to-no enhancement of their alleged goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:01 PM

12. +1000. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 11:57 AM

15. +10000

I hope the guy survives. This is horrible third world tinpot dictator stuff. How quickly we have fallen. Maybe we were never all that high to begin with. For myself, the ny times really is a fail, I will never subscribe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 02:20 PM

19. The IG confirmed the person was credible, they didn't need vetting by the NYT as well.

Only purpose of publishing the details was to get a scoop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:00 PM

11. Readers

can't decide if he's creditable or not. Congress must do the investigation first.

Until then, NYT's can shut the hell up. You want us to care about one of your journalists possibly being detained overseas, but hey outing a whistle blower is fine.

No, stop running we're first game. Protect the source you assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 11:59 AM

16. So much speculation about WB identity can endanger others

I thought it was Coats or even Bolton. So they are off the assassination list for now. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Fri Sep 27, 2019, 02:57 PM

20. Sure, NY Times, the whistleblower's credibility is

axiomatic given the level of the coverup. The NY Times is trying to cover its ass with a very thin veil indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread