What the hell is this? Why anonymity?
I'm going to leave aside the broader discussion of Iran supplying weapons to the Shia militias, and why "the U.S. officials glossed over armaments having reached the other major Shiite militia organization, the Badr Brigade" to focus on the way the information has been released.
Why? Why are these "experts" given anonymity, and why does a "large gathering of reporters" play along?
As the information has been vetted for public release, there's no reason that a military spokesman or an administration official can't be out in front making the presentation on the record.
(And, How exactly does this take place? Reporters attend the normal press conference, and at the end, the speaker points to a door and says, "anyone willing to play by our rules can go through that door and get the story of the day. If not, sit out here and get balled out by your superiors.")
This is just very wrong, and there's no reason for it.
Later: The NYTimes tries to explain, and we find out the reporters were asking the same question I am.
Again, give the declassified info to a public source, or, refer to the analyst as "an analyst whose identity is protected."
I know this seems a small point for this much electronic ink, but there must be accountability for intelligence used to justify attacking agents of Iran and risking war with Iran. If it's wrong, again, and we get into an unnecessary war, again, we deserve to know who shoveled the fertilizer.
Later still: (WaPo) "Reporters' cell phones were taken before the briefing, and the officials did not allow reporters to record or videotape the proceedings."
The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon.
Why? Why are these "experts" given anonymity, and why does a "large gathering of reporters" play along?
As the information has been vetted for public release, there's no reason that a military spokesman or an administration official can't be out in front making the presentation on the record.
(And, How exactly does this take place? Reporters attend the normal press conference, and at the end, the speaker points to a door and says, "anyone willing to play by our rules can go through that door and get the story of the day. If not, sit out here and get balled out by your superiors.")
This is just very wrong, and there's no reason for it.
Later: The NYTimes tries to explain, and we find out the reporters were asking the same question I am.
During the briefing, the senior United States military officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops. A senior military official said that without anonymity, for example, the military analyst could not have contributed to the briefing.
Again, give the declassified info to a public source, or, refer to the analyst as "an analyst whose identity is protected."
I know this seems a small point for this much electronic ink, but there must be accountability for intelligence used to justify attacking agents of Iran and risking war with Iran. If it's wrong, again, and we get into an unnecessary war, again, we deserve to know who shoveled the fertilizer.
Later still: (WaPo) "Reporters' cell phones were taken before the briefing, and the officials did not allow reporters to record or videotape the proceedings."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home