Quick quiz - which is easier:
Convincing or forcing several dozen international news agencies to delete extremely sensitive security information from their footage; or
Covering the cameras or pointing them down for half an hour during the security check?
Bonus question: which option would be a greater violation of freedom of the press?
Thank goodness the cameras were left on, or we’d be missing out on this riveting video.
The reality is that the press would turn the feed on live and promote the shit out of it.
The story evolved drastically in the 7 hours between the Washington Post cover and CNN much later.
My tone in the OP reflected the Washington Post’s tone. Whats going on? Why did this happen? What are they up to?
Then I read the CNN story a little later and much had been explained. So of course post 4 reflects that. Its not nearly as big a deal as first thought. It was probably one staffer making an independent decision without consulting with anybody.
I was simply trying to comment on a developing story and adjust as details came out. Isn’t that the reasonable approach?
Both of those quotes were from your OP.
I’m more concerned about the fact that there were two bomb scares in the same day (this one, and one in the Senate office building).
Maybe it took him more than 7 hours to write it.
So? Can’t I adjust to changing events in a developing story? I’m not going to cling to my same comments when much had been explained in later reporting.
From now on, I’ll wait a few days to comment on anything. There’s nothing like posting stale news to interest people.
I didn’t quote what you wrote because you were overreacting to a developing story. I quoted it because you totally contradicted yourself. It wouldn’t have mattered if you posted that stuff before, during, or nine years after the story developed.
To be fair, he was also overreacting to a developing story.
See you Saturday.
Folks aren’t reacting to you posting fresh news. It’s the over the top reactions- it’s not “This is odd, I wonder what’s going on. I’m not sure why they might do that”. Instead we get overreactions, one-sided opinions, and sky-is-falling rhetoric, followed by double-downing on your first reaction when other interpretations are pointed out to you.
This is a common pattern and that’s what is frustrating. For you to boil it down to “I guess I just have to post stale news” kind of misses the point.
I am trying hard to modify my comments when I realize they were very obviously wrong or overreactions. I know I’m perceived as stubborn and that I’m not listening. I am in the process of changing how I post here. Its a process but I will get there.
I’ve dialed back my initial reaction to this story. It does seem likely an independent staffer made a snap decision. I still think the cameras should have been left alone but I see others here don’t consider it important or a violation of the press’ rights to report. That’s cool. I won’t bring it up again.
Is it so difficult to imagine that the search tools and techniques used at such a top-level site might be classified, or in general best not demonstrated to the world, that select nutballs within it use the information to refine their tactics?
I don’t think that’s an accurate summation of how you’re perceived here. Perhaps reading the Pit thread will give you a better picture.
I respect that.
Even if it was an independent staffer’s snap decision, I think it was a correct decision and I support it. FWIW I expect that it is policy, set by the head of the Secret Service, and probably long-standing policy at that.
Governments should keep some things secret. And I don’t trust the press to keep things secret even when they should. Too easy to leak something, accidentally or otherwise, or use it to boost ratings (Next up on our Sweeps Week Spectacular! A new reality show - Bomb Squad Bimbo! See our model reenact genuine Secret Service procedures, and vote for your favorites!)
I am all for transparency, but Ed Snowden is still an asshole. Some things are none of the public’s business.
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says I should get 24/7 access to the security cameras at the White House.
Unless Michelle is taking a shower. That I want on PPV.
Regards,
Shodan
If a bomb had been found, there’s a very real chance that someone might be injured or even killed in the process. Yeah, they have suits, but nothing’s perfect. The bomb guys don’t need the pressure of all those cameras pointed at them.
I don’t know how the White House Press Corp is viewed today. It used to be a plumb assignment and the various news agencies sent their best people. It was my understanding they had a working relationship with the White House. Holding back or delaying a story when national interests or safety is at stake. Like the start of the two Gulf Wars. IIRC they held back coverage until after the planes were in the air and over the targets. They weren’t going to get our airmen killed by prematurely letting the other side know we were coming.
Maybe they can’t be trusted anymore. The 24 hour news cycle has changed everything. There is more pressure to report no matter what. I would hope they still have a shred of professionalism left in them. That they are capable of considering national security in choosing whether to run a story. I just don’t know.
You could save yourself a lot of time by just copying/pasting this into every thread you start.
It has nothing to do with trust of the press corps. This is about not filming active security operations.
You’re perceived as wantonly diving headfirst into the shallow end of the pool rather than waiting for your brain to finish processing the fact that you’re not at the deep end.