Whether or not it is leaked is of importance. If it is coming from official sources with no embargo or similar then it seems that the source intends it to be broadcast. If they are getting the information in an unofficial way then you are perfectly right.
I disagree, every individual, of whatever profession, should consider the consequences of passing on, or publishing any information, whether or not it's taken a 'bona-fide' journey before reaching that individual.
My colleagues Heather Stewart, Robert Booth and Vikram Dodd report that Theresa May will confront Donald Trump over the stream of leaks of crucial intelligence about the Manchester bomb attack when she meets the US president at a Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday.
- and the President & Chief executive of the New York Times is... Mark Thompson - you remember him. Hes the one who as BBC Director General sold Television Centre to a developer for a pittance - demolishing some of the best TV studios in the world. It caused a huge shortage of studio space in London & pushing up prices. He did enormous damage to the BBC before leaving the country.
I suspect the UK would suffer more from the lack of intelligence sharing than the US. So maybe the righteous indignation should he tempered a bit. Also with Brexit it can be argued that the UK needs its strong relatrionship with the US more than ever.
- and the President & Chief executive of the New York Times is... Mark Thompson - you remember him. Hes the one who as BBC Director General sold Television Centre to a developer for a pittance - demolishing some of the best TV studios in the world. It caused a huge shortage of studio space in London & pushing up prices. He did enormous damage to the BBC before leaving the country.
Whether or not it is leaked is of importance. If it is coming from official sources with no embargo or similar then it seems that the source intends it to be broadcast. If they are getting the information in an unofficial way then you are perfectly right.
The US media is generally very careful when it comes to releasing information from governmental sources. The news organizations will check with multiple people or even the originating organization to confirm the validity. They likely are told what's okay to be published as long as it doesn't affect any ongoing operations or confidential sources. In this case the suspects name is going to be released within the day.
As far as I know there was no embargo.
Also it's worth noting that once the name and pictures were released all the other news organizations reported it almost immediately.
Whether or not it is leaked is of importance. If it is coming from official sources with no embargo or similar then it seems that the source intends it to be broadcast. If they are getting the information in an unofficial way then you are perfectly right.
The US media is generally very careful when it comes to releasing information from governmental sources. The news organizations will check with multiple people or even the originating organization to confirm the validity. They likely are told what's okay to be published as long as it doesn't affect any ongoing operations or confidential sources. In this case the suspects name is going to be released within the day.
I'm guessing you mean US governmental sources (rather than UK). There are strong suggestions these leaks may not have come from official US sources... (The two main areas of suspicion for the leaks being discussed in the UK press are the White House and US law enforcement, rather than US intelligence, as these two areas may not be as experienced in intelligence sharing. The US President appeared to have released confidential third party intelligence to the Russians recently...)
Quote:
As far as I know there was no embargo.
Well there wouldn't be - this is a leak, not a press release...
Quote:
Also it's worth noting that once the name and pictures were released all the other news organizations reported it almost immediately.
Yes - once something is in the public domain, it's in the public domain. Unless there are legal restrictions on reporting it, of course it will be picked up.
The point is that some intelligence is shared within the US / UK intelligence community based on it remaining totally confidential and NOT being leaked to the press. It underpins the essence of intelligence sharing. It isn't made public for good reason... Twice over the past week intelligence shared in this manner has been leaked within the US. It casts very heavy suspicion on the security of the agencies that the UK has shared this intelligence with.
Whether or not it is leaked is of importance. If it is coming from official sources with no embargo or similar then it seems that the source intends it to be broadcast. If they are getting the information in an unofficial way then you are perfectly right.
The US media is generally very careful when it comes to releasing information from governmental sources. The news organizations will check with multiple people or even the originating organization to confirm the validity. They likely are told what's okay to be published as long as it doesn't affect any ongoing operations or confidential sources. In this case the suspects name is going to be released within the day.
I'm guessing you mean US governmental sources (rather than UK). There are strong suggestions these leaks may not have come from official US sources... (The two main areas of suspicion for the leaks being discussed in the UK press are the White House and US law enforcement, rather than US intelligence, as these two areas may not be as experienced in intelligence sharing. The US President appeared to have released confidential third party intelligence to the Russians recently...)
Quote:
As far as I know there was no embargo.
Well there wouldn't be - this is a leak, not a press release...
Quote:
Also it's worth noting that once the name and pictures were released all the other news organizations reported it almost immediately.
Yes - once something is in the public domain, it's in the public domain. Unless there are legal restrictions on reporting it, of course it will be picked up.
The point is that some intelligence is shared within the US / UK intelligence community based on it remaining totally confidential and NOT being leaked to the press. It underpins the essence of intelligence sharing. It isn't made public for good reason... Twice over the past week intelligence shared in this manner has been leaked within the US. It casts very heavy suspicion on the security of the agencies that the UK has shared this intelligence with.
It's very serious and not at all good...
I wasn't aware about the suggestions that the NYT got information from "civilian" sources which undoubtedly had to get their information from either US or UK government employees. You make a very good point about the intelligence leaks coming directly from the White House or the FBI.
Now I'm willing to bet the U.K. news organizations knew about the bombers name, familial relations and have were in contact to get a scoop.
Now I'm willing to bet the U.K. news organizations knew about the bombers name, familial relations and have were in contact to get a scoop.
They may well have been - take for example the report that led the 9 o'clock bulletin on Sky News that went well into detail about the bomber's Isis links, that will have taken time to prepare.
Reporters have to maintain respectful relationships with their sources. Information shouldn't be released if requested by the authorities, as it may well compromise an investigation, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given information so that they can prepare for this once the time is right.
If you fail to respect this, at the very least you should not expect to be given information in the future. At worst it could be considered to be perverting the course of justice.
