Discussion: Spy Agency Tipped Off The AP To Another Media Outlet's Scoop

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #226001

2

Where is 007 when you need him?

2 Likes
3

Who needs 007 when you’ve got this working for you?

6 Likes
4

Let me guess: The Washington Bureau of the AP right?
Otherwise known as the Republican Party Bureau of the AP.

5 Likes
5

I wonder who that is in the picture? One would think TPM could figure out a way to put a caption on the photo.

Speaking of unprofessional, why all the colloquialisms in the article? “Gave a heads up to” and “our bad” and “pissed,” doesn’t anyone know how to speak professionally these days? Ms. Macneal isn’t the only offender here, the NCC official and reporter are also guilty.

6

It’s Scahill, in front of a giant Oscar. Why? Who knows.

Scahill

Oh, here’s why: Dirty Wars…

3 Likes
7

Scahill is complaining about government leaking?

That’s pretty funny.

8 Likes
8

Jeremy Scahill

9

Common flak taktics.

10

According to the source, Cook told the official that in the future the agency would have only 30 minutes to respond to questions before publication.

“They also were saying, with most news organizations we’d have a real back-and-forth and we’d have an opportunity to discuss what should be redacted, but with you guys, you’ve made it clear you’re not going to have those kinds of conversations with us,” the source said.

Is this adversarial journalism?

3 Likes
11

“I saw it first” “No! I did”. “Did Not!”

That’s what happens when your leaks have leaks.

2 Likes
12

I’m not sure I get this story. How does getting scooped “undermine” the Intercept? If you mean "got scooped, say that.

2 Likes
13

Thanks! Hopefully TPM will waive your prime membership since youi’re now doing their job for them!

1 Like
14

Apparently the journalism background story is bigger than the leaked story. The NCC did its job, all our secrets are safe tonight.

2 Likes
15

According to Ryan Grim…

The government’s decision to spoil a story on the topic of national security is especially unusual, given that it has a significant interest in earning the trust of national security reporters so that it can make its case that certain information should remain private.

Now they’ll only be given 30 minutes to make their case. That should build trust.

1 Like
16

Yes. Kind of an epic blunder. Go, NCC…

2 Likes
17

Seems so, right? Also seems like a reason for this agency to blow off the Intercept in the future, and to continue to feed other organizations. Seems like a lose-lose for both.

2 Likes
18

Who cares? You don’t really think they’re giving out any useful information to anyone, do you? This would never have become public if someone had not leaked it to The Intercept. They had the courtesy to give the government an opportunity to respond, and got screwed in return. IMO the government has a lot more to lose here than The Intercept does, particularly now that there’s almost certainly a new informant.

1 Like
19

Josh’s “get out ahead of it” thing explained it a little too. But fear cripes sake, it’s the Internet. It’s not like when getting out first sold more papers.

2 Likes
20

You mean by “this” the Intercept’s response, I’m guessing. As for who cares?

I would, if I worked at the Intercept. Giving the government 30 minutes to respond before you publish anything might leave you with egg all over your face after the government spends time with other news organizations carefully rebutting whatever your org published.

So the Intercept drew a line in the sand because they’re convinced this was purposeful. Seems like a problematic reaction.