A story about this was already posted on Daily Kos by Colorado Blue. However, I know from polls that the majority of Kossaks do not have online subscriptions so are unable to read the comments made to NY Times article. I copied representative comments here for them to read.
The New York Times learned two crucial facts which add to the credibility of the whistleblower and decided to publish them: he or she is a C.I.A. officer who was previously detailed to work at the White House and had expertise on Ukraine.
This is from this mornings brief editorial. It is Dean Baquet’s (The Times’s executive editor) response to the criticism.
The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding. The president himself has called the whistle-blower’s account a “political hack job.”
We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower — including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House — because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.
I wish that the NY Times had reached out to the whistleblower through his/her lawyer and gotten permission as to what, if any, details to release about why we should trust them. The two bits of information released narrow down the whistleblower's identity for anyone familiar with White House personnel to the point where he/she could be identified as being one of probably a very few people, perhaps just one person.
As I write this there are over 2,000 comments reacting to their decision. By far most of the comments expressed the opinion that the Times should not have published this information.
For those who don’t subscribe to the paper online here is a sample pro, con, and mixed.
Con:
- If the whistleblower wanted any thing published about who he/she might be or anything that closely identifies their position.....he/she would have provided it. NYT overstepped In responsible journalism!
- Your decision goes against the entire point of the whistleblower statute and the protection it extends to the brave men and women it protects. If you are suggesting that the Times’ standard to judge credibility is different from, or more rigorous than, that of Congress, then you are guilty of hubris. If you’re Suggesting that you have to put this information out there to counterbalance the personal attacks on the whistleblowers credibility that you surely know Trump will make, then you are simply playing into trumps hands. For about the one millionth time.
- There are ways to demonstrate the credibility of the whistleblower without endangering his career and physical safety. Furthermore, the chilling effect this will have on future potential whistleblowers is counter to the public interest. The poor judgment demonstrated today is remarkable; it undermines the credibility of the Times and distracts from the most consequential story of our generation.
- I’m a middle-aged man raised and living in the Midwest. But I was raised on the New York Times: my parents always got the Times, delivered when it became possible (my mother who has dementia still receives the Times: even if she has trouble working through it, being without it would be too strange for her even as so much has changed). I get the Times delivered as well. I don’t always agree with your coverage of the news (and don’t get me started on your op-ed page!). But never before have I questioned the moral core or general benign intent of the paper before this piece. I’ve never written in response to any article, never read the comments section here before, but I felt compelled to say that I really think your editorial board should take time to reassess its actions and the actual consequences of their action here. I’m actually shaken, dismayed and disgusted.
- I respectfully disagree with the decision because it fails a cost-benefit and risk-reward analysis. The cost and risk is that people within the White House who did not know who the whistleblower was will be able to deduce it now. Even Trump said he didn't know who it was, so his identity was unknown to administration officials until now. The benefit/reward is negligible because the new information is minimally useful for the public. It will not change any readers' judgments about whether or not the person is credible. We already knew that the person had TS clearance and worked in or with the WH on national security issues. That plus the complaint, plus the DNI's evaluation, are sufficient to evaluate his credibility. Adding the fact that he is CIA with Ukraine expertise is a marginal bit of info that will change nobody's mind. The NYT should have left it up to the whistleblower to determine if and when to become known to the administration or everyone.
Pro:
- Frankly, I was pleased to learn the whistleblower was a CIA operative and an expert on the Ukraine. With Trump bashing the person, I was of the belief that this whistleblower may have been a low level employee. Now that we know the person is of a higher rank, it helps with the credibility issue.
- With respect to the veritable avalanche of complaints that The Times recklessly put the whistle-blower's identity at risk, I would point out that a) none of these people are familiar with the inner workings of the federal government, and b) three people who *do* explicitly know the person's identity confirmed it -- all of whom obviously also know the specifics of said inner workings.I find it very hard to believe that even one of these three sources would've confirmed the person's identity if they'd had *any* reason to believe doing so would compromise their personal security or potential retribution from Trump or his allies. And *they* would know this reality far better than the hoi polloi castigating The Times for its decision.
- I share the NYT Editorial Board’s assessment about the value of publishing the limited information concerning the likely credentials of the whistleblower. The number of people who work for the CIA is classified, but simply describing the person as CIA is not enough to identify them. I, personally, am more worried about the not-thinly-veiled threats Trump made, which serve to highlight (yet again) his ignorance and self interest, both of which are threats to national security.
Mixed:
- (From a Canadian reader) It's one thing if the whistle blower is someone of prominence with the resources, status and media profile to defend himself -- say, if it was John Bolton (who I believe may have had a hand in collating the information that went to the whistle blower to form the complaint). BUT - if the whistle blower is a mid-level, career employee/officer with no such profile or resources, then I think it reckless to publish details, however limited. Those bread crumbs might be enough for Trump's White House loyalists to finger and retaliate against this person. It also provides clues that they might be able to 'reverse engineer' the complaint to find those who provided details to the whistle blower. And you know now what Trump would like to do to them. Come on, NYT, this is serious business. Clicks and page views need to take a back seat. Careers and, who knows, even lives might be at stake. Please exercise utmost caution. The big story is out. Do we need these details right now?
- Do folks really think that the President of the United States is going to be impeached on the word of an anonymous source who got his information from unnamed third parties.The whistleblower will be identified and deposed. He will have to divulge the sources of his information under oath and they will be identified and deposed.Anonymous accusations may have become the norm with today's utterly unethical "journalists. That patheticly low bar for evidence will not suffice in an impeachment hearing. This guy wanted to be a hero and he will get his chance. My guess is that the other folks he will be outing will be even less excited to be questioned under oath. This is going to be a total failure for the Democrats and their supporters in the press. Count on it.
What do you think?
Friday, Sep 27, 2019 · 5:48:34 PM +00:00 · HalBrown
From Alternet/Washington Monthly: Here’s the scariest thing Trump said on the Ukraine call
After I learned that there was a whistleblower report pertaining to the president, I naturally wanted to know more. I became especially curious when I realized that it centered around a phone call Trump had in July with the president of Ukraine. When I finally saw a partially redacted transcript of the call, there were many things that caught my attention but only one thing that genuinely surprised me.
President Trump’s words about Marie L. Yovanovitch, his former ambassador to Ukraine, were ominous. In a telephone conversation that has set off a political crisis for Mr. Trump, he told Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, that she was “bad news.”
“She’s going to go through some things,” he added.
Those words—”she’s going to go through some things”—were what I’d expect to hear on the surreptitiously recorded conversations of an old school mob boss. The brash John Gotti might have said he had someone “whacked,” but the more traditional godfathers would just say, “you won’t hear from him again.”