Not really, you just said it was hypocrisy without saying why. Or I just missed it. I'm saying I don't have a problem with complaints about the policy, but I don't see where it's hypocritical. A logically consistent position can be taken that allows for the praising of reporters who risk their lives to bring news stories while also cracking down on people leaking classified information. Tapper calls both issues aggressive journalism and asks why aggressive journalism is encouraged in one case and discouraged in another. But the praise is for a subsection of aggressive journalism- where the journalist risks his or her life and makes other major sacrifices to get the story. And the discouragement is not against aggressive journalism, it's against the revealing of secret or classified information. So it's not hypocritical. As an analogy, is it hypocritical for someone to praise a police officer for killing somebody on a shooting spree, but denounce the shooter himself? Of course not. Both cases involve killing, but it's not a hypocritical stance because it's not the killing specifically that is being commented on. The same is true here. Both cases involve aggressive journalism, but it's not hypocrisy because it's not specifically the aggressive journalism that is being judged. So the administration apparently has a logically consistent position on this. You can disagree with that position, but it's not hypocritical. Of course, Tapper was trying to make a larger point and get Carney to address the larger issue of aggressive journalism and why the administration values keeping state secrets over being more transparent. The reference to the praise of certain journalists wasn't all that relevant to such a point, though, in my opinion.
Presumably in the instances referenced (e.g. syria's mini-civil-war), the government there would rather this information be classified. Or, perhaps more poignantly, what the reporters are doing could accurately be described as "whistleblowing" inasmuch as it is illuminating the atrocities that otherwise the world would be ignorant of. The comparison is apt in my mind - and so is use of the term "hypocritical". Your argument is predicated on the assumption that US intel is justifiably classified. There is much evidence this is not the case - check the wiretapping thread for a large amount of expose. Or google. away...
Well, when determining whether somebody is being hypocritical, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what they think. And yes, of course they think the US intel is justifiably classified. Another analogy... I wouldn't call it hypocritical to praise US spies for getting classified information from other countries while trying to prevent other spies from getting our information. The reason I feel the need to mention that this isn't hypocrisy is that it cheapens your real argument, which is that it is wrong. By incorrectly (in my opinion) claiming hypocrisy, you're trying to minimize the real justification they have for the moves they are making. A better and more convincing argument would acknowledge and counter their actual reasons. For example, you might say that you disagree that they are justified in keeping certain intel classified, and say why. That would be a stronger argument. (And note that I think the quote above has the same issue as the original post with regards to conflating two similar but not identical things and calling different positions on them hypocritical.)
Congrats. That's why they're hypocrites. Don't bother me with arguments of perception...that's folly.
What kind of response is that? I took the time to give you my reasoning. If you want to discuss this why not give me yours? And note that I indicated my reasons for challenging the hypocrisy claims just as an explanation and to show why I thought your complaints were misguided. They weren't intended to support my claim that this isn't hypocrisy. Please don't treat them as such.
QFT. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember him or any other network journalist making a peep about the BS that led us into Iraq. Still, better late than never.
you have to forgive rhad and his ego. check out how he references his thread to make his case that the information isn't justifiably classified. his argument basically boils down to jake tapper agrees with me and i agree with him therefore i am right.
Sorry - I had absorbed a few* excellent Belgian ales before I wrote that post. Objectively, they're being hypocrites. Naturally, in their own little world, they're not hypocritical at all. Making such an argument hardly excuses them from their hypocrisy - heck, such an oblivious attitude is a hallmark of the term. All you've done is explained how they rationalized their hypocritical mentality. It's rather difficult to be willfully and intentionally hypocritical - willful hypocrisy is more accurately termed lying. Accordingly, the accusation is tremendously just. *A few being anywhere between 3 and 13.
No worries. But it's not hypocrisy if there is a logical and consistent reasoning for the actions. That doesn't mean it isn't a rationalization, too. I made the analogy of criticizing a murderer but not the person who killed him to prevent more murders. That's hypocrisy under your definition. If that's how you want to define hypocrisy, then ok, but that seems to be a useless definition to me. I'd prefer to save the charges of hypocrisy for times when there isn't logically coherent reasoning being applied consistently. In this case, I'd much prefer to hear your (or Tapper's) reasons why not aggressively going after people revealing state secrets is important to protecting the ability of journalists to do their job, and should be valued over protecting of those secrets.
That's easy. The whistleblowers in question have revealed law-breaking and/or dubious ethics/civics of government programs/officials. This is exactly the same type of activity that the administration is praising in other countries. Furthermore, a rather critical aspect of the message is that the "secrets" tag is being quite deliberately misused. Again, this is covered rather thoroughly in the wiretapping thread. I'm still not convinced that the charge of "hypocrisy" is specious. I think I see your point, but on first pass I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. I'll try to reply again later after I've thought about it a bit more.
Let's look at this example. Like the murder one you used later in the thread, I don't think it phrases the situation accurately. A more apt analogy is: Your counterarguments to the above are predicated on a "good-side, bad-side" (i.e., that US spies are working for some noble purpose, whereas Iranian spies are working for Dr. Doom) idea that I fundamentally do not agree with.
While my quote is not hypocrisy I would agree that your altered quote is hypocrisy. However, I don't think your altered quote is an accurate analogy to what is happening here. If the White House was calling journalists who aggressively investigate wrongdoing here "evil" and praising them for doing them same thing in Syria, then I would agree that it was hypocrisy. But I see no evidence that that is what is happening. Instead, I see reference to the U.S. trying to prevent state secrets from being exposed by cracking down on leaks. That's not calling the spies evil, that's trying to prevent them from getting our information (so my analogy fits better).
Trying folks under the ultra-draconian Espionage Act via a rationalization that they are endangering "national security" is about as legally evil as you can get from a prosecution POV without outright accusing someone of being a traitor. I feel pretty convinced that I'm not being egregious in the accusation of hypocrisy.
