The Media’s Risky Love Affair With Leaks

Mr. John Herrman, please explain why you omitted any the reference to the PentagonPapersVietnamEllsbergNYTSupremeCourtRuling in your long article on leaked documents and the presidency?

My god, has the NYT rendered the Pentagon Papers passe? Might mention of Pentagon Papers be too distasteful because they show concretely, in detail, how the U.S. government lied its way through 3 decades of inflicting death on the people of Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia?

And yeah, only naive old fools like me would have been outraged about Clinton's emails. No big deal that these emails reveal just how much Sec. of State Clinton's valued her lobbyist chum's views over all others in her noble demolishing most of the infrastructure of an entire nation to kill one self-indulgent head of state she despised.

Leaks, truth and lies...what a stew.

It's a deep philosophical question. What is Truth. Maybe it's That which never changes, yet everything in this universe seems to change. What ever it is in the ultimate, it seems we'll always fall short in trying to describe it with words.

So on this planet where all of us are self serving at least some if not most of the time, all we can do is strive for the best relative truth we know or can discern.

And journalists should strive mightily to verify the facts that coalesce into what we call truth. Whether they come from leaks or other sources.

Then report the best truth we know today. That of course may change next week given new information, but we generally have to go with the best we have now. And how reliable a source has been in the past. With trump, he says one thing today and the opposite next week. Nothing is reliable.

Long term, truth always wins out in the end. When that actually happens no one knows. Truth is a judgment based on known facts. It is seldom or never absolute. Use leaks carefully, vet them, then make the best judgment you can.

Not much else we or the media can do, except honestly try to do the right thing. And whatever we read, see or hear...be skeptical until we have some honest sense we can trust the info or person. Such is life.

Republicans loved leaks when they were about Obama or Clinton.
Trump loved leaks and called for hacking -cyber warfare- against the United States.

Republicans and Trump have legitimized leaks.

All presidents have lived under a microscope.
Trump will be no exception.
Trump advocated for hacks and leaks, he better get used to it, it is he and Republicans that have legitimized leaks.

Trump will be subjected to the electron microscope of leaks, because leaks are what he advocated for in the campaign.

Leaks are not the fault of the media.
For the past 4 years Republican investigations were spewing leaks daily.

Even James Comey admitted that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton was the leakiest investigation in FBI history. Then Comey took it a step farther with his politically motivated comments and leaked letter to congress.

Jul 27, 2016 - Donald Trump invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.
Jan 5, 2017 - The president-elect Trump tweets approvingly of repeated WikiLeaks.
Oct 17, 2016 - The GOP's newfound support for WikiLeaks.
October 2016 Republicans think WikiLeaks is great now that it's releasing Clinton campaign emails.

All presidents have lived under a microscope. Trump will be no exception.
It was Donald that legitimize leaks.

In Clinton's case the whole thing was self inflicted and she knew better.

Agreed.
Too much 'leaking,' and the rush to publish/broadcast same, in any administration -- and I'm no fan of of this one -- isn't good overall, over time for the country.
"Loose lips sink ships," etc.
I want to be responsibly informed and aware, with veracity all the way around.
Harder and harder in today's continuous news cycle, but all must try. Must think -- is this serving the greater good?
Realize all things not able to be processed with a long lens on a tight schedule or deadline.
Same with lampooning the new Washingtonians. I want them to be very certain that we, via people like Colbert, John Oliver, SNL, etc. are watching them ... but don't want that type of spotlight to push them totally over the brink.
We're near enough to it already.
It's an enormous responsibility. I don't envy those tasked with it.

My problem with the recent Wikileaks is that there is a distinct filter between the person(s) who obtained the information and the people who released it. Journalists cannot and should not ignore leaks but they must be able to verify and communicate with the source and be very suspicious as to the scope of the material. Anonymously sent material must be independently substantiated. All material must be vetted by sharp people within the field to test for their reaction and their judgment as to its likely veracity. That is journalism. Anything less than that is nothing but rumor and gossip. Put it on Facebook, not in the Times.

Just who out there is telling the truth? And how would you know it? Sorrowfully, I just don't believe that anything I read or hear in the media is true. I live in a world of liars and I never knew it was this bad.

I was born in the USA during the depression, served in the US Army voluntarily and always thought my country was a shade above the rest. And now, after our circus election, I feel disappointed that our politicians in the Capitol are simply clowns who are destroying the USA from within.

Trump has generated a "fog" of nonsense to obscure his purposes in order to distract us from the ignorance behind his determination. As Richard Nixon schemed to deceive us about the status of the Vietnam War in order to secure another term, Trump secured his term by feeding lies to his rallies, so now he needs to block the media from reminding him what he said when the ends justified the means for his morality.

We also know that when Pence was governing of Indiana, he tried to create an office which would prepackage all of his communications with the media. He didn't get away with the effort to keep real life from intruding on taped history, but Kellyanne Conway also shows how this strategy translates into press relations designed to be uninformative when she talks endlessly about
Donald, her hero, in the course of avoiding any direct question. She "knows Donald's heart," for example, in explaining why she, as Press Secretary, is also out of the loop with Steve Banning.

We should assume that the people who voted for Trump would prefer Pence's radio shows to a real press conference. It's all about the ratings, not the leaks
Trump's organization(s) are a perfect fit for Putin's oligarchy--always were--so the leaks are really yesterday's news.

Maybe someday the IRS will leak Donald's tax returns so we can get on the same page with his ever-changing platform. Higher premiums, not healthier workers, will help him deliver the promised jobs, apparently.

A good example of this article's wisdom is how the Times and other media love printing leaks of documents under seal by a court, ignoring that the leak may be refuted by other documents under seal, which the law-abiding party cannot disclose.

A related issue is the unwiliingness of much of the media (except for Fox, which I distrust) to contemplate whether Snowden intentionally or otherwise aided Russia or China.

Take a lesson from the spy industry. Leaks should never be taken at face value. Journalists absolutely must always confirm the veracity of the leak.

The leak concept is a double-edged sword. If trump and bannon start kicking everyone out whom they believe is disloyal, the public will never know what's really going on in the white house or to our democracy. That goes for staffers as well as the press corps.

On the other side, do not be surprised when a white house leak turns out to be deliberate fake news used by bannon et.al to discredit the new source to which the leaked news was "entrusted" and then trump will tweet about it all four years long.

Let's not forget Rove's strategy of leaking anonymously then quoting the paper to prove it must be true. We should all be skeptical of leaks and ask what's in it for the source.

That having been said, it's extremely plausible that Trump is into pee-pee parties, and the fact that a few Russian spies have been killed or disappeared makes it seem all the more certain.

All American politics is partisan. All American media is biased.

Deciding what policies should govern our American lives is inherently partisan. Deciding whicch news should be covered and how and when reflects an editorial bias.

In our divided limited power democratic republic every citizen is free to independently creatively and originally to find their most meaningful truth amongst both the partisan politicians and media.

"What did you think of the play at Ford's Theatre Mrs. Lincoln?'

"What did you think of the weather in Dallas Texas, Mrs. Kennedy?';

Excellent article, and one that makes a significant point: leaks have the influence to sway politics, in this case elections. The fact that the released e-mails of Mrs. Clinton revealed nothing of any importance to national security was overshadowed by the very fact that the media was seduced by the magic words, e-mails, and little else mattered. The significance of that still makes me want to pull out my hair in frustration.

Mad Magazine's 'Spy vs. Spy'......

You just have to keep in mind that anything invented for a "good" purpose will stay in the realm of the "good" for approx. 10 seconds these days. Assume that all actions and reactions will be "mis-used" very quickly in other contexts and will never go away again. Ease of communication means ease of miscommunication.

You barely mention a foreign country hostile to the United States which weaponized material against one candidate and the press, particularly The Times, which eagerly seized on stolen material designed to derail one candidate. I have given up waiting for any reporter to acknowledge this. Instead, you blame a private institution that preferred the actual Democrat. No one can point to any real harm, because voters decisively chose Clinton.

I am a subscriber, but this will forever be a stain on the Times.

Uh, leaks are what we have and NEED. Are we to wait for and rely upon "alternative facts"? The propaganda machine is spinning its rotors and grinding gears. NIXON would be impressed and incredulous.

Media should also be wary of disinformation presented as leaks to "tempt" reporters. Some will be tests-- inconsequential info at best. Later, once the reporter has been cultivated and trust developed, the disinformation will be presented on same terms, and reporter will bite, telling editors truthfully that the source has been 100 percent accurate to date. Reporter and publication can then lose years of good reputation and reader trust once "inaccuracy" is proven, while the "source" just smiles....

Most MSM require multiple sources for cross-verification for this reason. But I worry that in age of social media, some media orgs will be less diligent.

The Trump Bubble may be leaking. Tell the Media to put a lid on it is a fantastic way to make it bounce back. Trump has mastered what this American calls 'The Art of Transference'. Fake News? This is what Mr. Obama asked that we try to be able to expose. Chelsea Manning is a 'traitor', Hillary Clinton should be swept away to the Tower, but has any member of the Media ever mentioned 'treason'?

Times have changed from the days where Henry the VIII apparently boiled a chef or two. If asked what your parents taught you, what would you reply? Perhaps 'nothing' but it would be honest on your part.

Here is a 'leak' for the New York Times. Perhaps the Editorial Board and Staff will not be allowed to watch it. It is about when we were very young. Perhaps it is about life, love and death, or something very different. Listening to the music again after all these years, in these Forbidden Games, I thought what would the World be like without America? Save America and all Children from War so that we can see the Sun rise Tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfq6ILqP2AI

how does the editorial board and all you 6 figure , single malt journalists feel about Ed Snowden now?

Great article. I have tried to understand this sentence "Politics documented by leaks and politics enacted through leaks are two very different things". I have no idea how could I contact the writer, but I would really appreciate if anyone could elaborate and explain what is the meaning behind this this sentence the writer tried to imply? Thank you.

Once again please forgive this sophomoric idea. If you can't quote your source perhaps you don't have a story. The nightly news is filled with
" Informed sources tell us," etc, etc. Don't reporters understand they are being used? Worse, perhaps some reporters are making all or part of the story up, and there are no informed sources. The hyperbole heightens from " Informed sorces," then " Sources high up in the adminstration," then " Sources close to the President," then the word " Exclusively," is added for further drama. What and who are we to believe? Whenever you see and hear the words " Informed Sources, " "Exclusively," and "Breaking News, " beware! It may not be news at all.

Leaks, when we are confronted with a 'secretive' government, may help expose potential danger, abuse of power, and corruption. But watch out for the intentional 'leaks' devoid of truth, meant to confuse our already gullible citizenry, and kept clueless as to the 'ship's route and destination'. 'Divide to conquer' seems the 'modus operandi' of crooked lying Trump's devious reign. Fortunately, it is subject to a basic law: what goes up, comes down (hopefully sooner than later).

As on so many other occasions in this demented election year, your interesting consideration of the issue of leaks to the media comes off as prissy navel gazing, appearing entirely too late.

Where was your compunction as we were trundling toward election of America's Biggest Liar? Where your concern for completeness when you ran, endlessly, with Comey, the Russian connection, THE EMAILS, Benghazi. et al?

Lest you take this as a partisan rant, my concern here is on your behalf; for your credibility and, likely, your survival as a meaningful source of information and analysis.

You've already lost half the country (ironically the half you hooked up with during the campaign), and your fecklessness has raised serious doubts among those who usually support and believe you.

And I must tell you, now that your disgrace is nearly complete, how it pains me to be confronted daily with
"Real journalism. Like nowhere else."

It's a painful reminder both of good Times past, and of listening to our new President's delusional self adoration.

Sad.

As if youse guys don't already know, if you start running a currency of classified government leaks the government will start really going after reporters and congress will pass laws that will make it a crime with serious prison sentences. There won't be these vague century old espionage statutes.
The government has already created new classes of information which gives them another excuse to restrict it's publication. Now there is SBU, sensitive but unclassified. It's not classified so laws and regulations concerning classified information don't apply. It's not FOUO, for official use only, either.
I don't even know if there are 'sensitive but unclassified" unclassified information classification guidelines. How does one decide it's sensitive? If it's sensitive then it must be classified, but it's not classified, it's sensitive. How sensitive? Says who? Where's your authority to say it's sensitive, but unclassified? If it's unclassified then the public can see it. No! It's sensitive.
We all know (because I just said so) that classified information can be derived from a conglomeration of unclassified information to reveal classified information. This is called conglomeration sensitive information, or CSI.

He talks bad "leaks" but focusses on "fake news" which is not "leaked" but "created."

Saying one "leaks" misinformation implies that the source is authoritative, but in fact they're just tossing noise and garbage into the news mix.

Fuzzy logic opinion piece. Discardable.

The so-called President has a decades long history of leaking stories of all kinds to the press, even evidenced ober the years by his submitting stories using fake names. And as a person so painfully desperate for news, any news, who is more likely the leaker than he?

This is quite a stretch John: "By virtue of their unvarnished nature, leaks have evolved into the realest of facts. This epistemological status..."

Leaks are just one form of information, one way of knowing, and have been around forever. Most of your readers understand that they are to be taken with a grain of salt, are not truer or more "core", and are to be mixed with other types of information that are more solid to derive a fuller picture...and ultimately conclusion.

Buzzfeed was right to publish the dossier and do so with the qualification, as they made very obvious, that they were in fact unverified allegations. This is regardless of whether all or none of them are borne out. After all, when McCain travels to the UK to research their source, when they are "leaked" by our legitimate intelligence agencies, when the Senate Minority Leader is indicating the FBI is hiding information, when the Russians have been invited to (and followed through on) hack our democracy...well this makes the dossier and all research on Trump's Russian ties absolutely newsworthy. Its a shame that Buzzfeed was the only media outlet willing to publish, with others acting instead as gatekeepers to keep their readers uninformed.

Time will tell re: the truth contained in the dossier... One thing about them, however, is true without doubt, it will now be impossible for a Trump Attorney General/FBI/CIA to easily sweep investigations of Trump's Russian ties, and possible treason, under the rug.

Which leaks are really unattributed press releases, and which ones are true leaks - isn't that what reporters and editors are paid to differentiate?

The material from Snowdon and Mossack Fonseca had the benefit of being instantly credible, if not instantly verifiable. Any experienced network engineer looking at Snowdon's documents understood they were accurate and real, because that's exactly how you would technically do this type of surveillance.

Leaks of "policy decisions" are more difficult to substantiate as factual, because to do so almost always implicates the leaker.

The major newspapers beg for leaks. "Share news tips with us confidentially" is boldly printed on the Washington Post daily!

An obsession with getting the story first creates a vulnerability for the news media. The deliberate planting of false information, followed by a complaint of "fake news," becomes a distinct possibility.

"'Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public.' Setting aside the dossier’s contents, Trump understood that its status in the public eye depended in part on what it was called."

Nonsense. Trump understands nothing. Certainly nothing as subtle as nuanced meanings of "leak."

Leaks are far more often than not ... sponsored, encouraged, planned by the institution from which leaked. Whistleblowing is far more reliable, valuable, and terrifying to the institutions whose dirty laundry gets aired. The Obama administration often leaked, intentionally, but whistleblowers were punished more often and more harshly than in all previous administrations combined. Obama went out of his way to encourage whistleblowing, so as to get them to reveal themselves so they could be publicly crushed as an example to anyone else considering the same.

One must distinguish between leaking and whistleblowing, big difference in value to the public.

Perhaps, perhaps. But by putting it this way, not a bad roadmap for thousands of hold overs, and ideological foes to rampage against the stumbles of a new regime.

So what's your point, Mr. Hermann? Are leaks good or bad or are they simply being employed by one party or another to further their agenda?

Like it or not, leaks are as old as Methuselah. The fact that they exist—and will continue to exist—doesn't change in the least. All we can do is judge the motives and character of the leaker. Is it Trump or Steele or Snowden? We will always have to look at the facts behind the leak.