Does a media-unit have an obligation to "turn over" a source that the President doesn't like? Is there a national security issue?

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 14:48:24 -0400

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Sep 6 at 2018 2:53 PM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 14:53:07 -0400

No newspaper, or TV News has any obligation to "turn over" sources simply because the President doesn't like what was written. Since there were no secrets published, there is no national security considerations.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Sep 6 at 2018 3:46 PM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 15:46:57 -0400

No, but the source has an obligation to sack up and allow the American people to see who is making these claims to provide context and assure them that this wasn't made up or some scheme dreamed up by a foreign power. I'm also not keen on the idea that someone on the inside would think they should act against the President. I don't care how much one despises any President, if they are making bad decisions, let them fail and allow the People to decide his fate. No one voted for this individual to act on their own to work in spite of a President's desired actions.

Personally, I think the NYT is either full of shit or someone has successfully conned them.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Sep 6 at 2018 4:00 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 16:00:55 -0400

Unfortunately the Writer does not have to give up their source which I don't agree with because on any article not just this one I could say an anonymous source and write whatever I want to.

My personal opinion is that what my parents have always told me. If you are going to do something or say something then OWN IT!!! Don't hide, don't deflect just own it. That is what I wish would happen...what is the worst thing that could happen in this case...Trump fires them. If you are going to work for someone loyalty goes a long way. Don't go behind my back.

Response by SrA John Monette made Sep 6 at 2018 4:08 PM

SrA John Monette — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 16:08:59 -0400

so it's ok for him to not tell who his sources are? but if anyone who he doesn't like does it, they are gutless. how does an anonymous source threaten national security???

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2018 4:09 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 16:09:09 -0400

Maj Z, I hope you drag, pull, prod, and medicate HRC for 2020 and she wins. Then I'll get the popcorn out when the Republican Deep State conspires, revolts, resists, gets their patriotism on to stop everything she does or wants to do. And then we'll see how y'all characterize these folks in our government mucking up the POTUSs administration.

Response by PO1 Robert George made Sep 6 at 2018 11:53 PM

PO1 Robert George — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 23:53:39 -0400

as has always been taught in the military...you don't have to respect the person(that's earned) but you do have to respect the uniform. military doesn't get much choice in who their leaders are. civilians do. if you don't like the man, leave. don't hide behind 'anonymous'. grow a set for christ's sake!

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 7 at 2018 12:22 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:22:13 -0400

Hells naw. This situation wasn’t ‘National Security’ related. It was personal to him, and it wasn’t even ‘treasonous’.
The media has a right to protect sources the same as Trump, LE, the IC, and the military does. Get thicker skin.