Comments on: Twitter, World War II and the death of official secrets

By: Chad L

Chad L — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:52:32 +0000

Whether or not you like him or our military campaign in the region, the safety and protection of our President ensures the relative safety of everyone in the U.S. The flippant tone of this article suggests it’s just another “social privacy” issue spurred by the social web. This is a serious issue. Note to White House – ban reporters on these types of trips and grant media access via telepresence (I’m sure John Chambers at Cisco can set this up) sessions staged aboard Air Force 1. It’s clear that reporters don’t honor their “sworn secrecy” and can’t resist the temptation of information leaks. The fact that a reporter thinks it’s “a tough one” (Buzzfeed’s decision) to publish versus jeopardizing national security is another deeper societal issue that can’t be addressed properly here. This shows why new media startups have a lot to learn from the established quality journalistic institutions like New York Times they love to bash. Media dogma or safety at home?? Hmmm

By: lcw1

lcw1 — Sat, 05 May 2012 21:16:17 +0000

Regardless of your opinions toward him or our military presence in the region he is still our President and Commander in Chief and everyone living in the U.S. enjoys relative safety because he’s well protected. This is more serious than the flippant tone of this article suggests. The White House should ban all reporters from these trips and resort to doing telepresence interviews from Air Force 1. “Sworn to secrecy” clearly is no longer effective.

By: chromeronin

chromeronin — Sat, 05 May 2012 01:39:49 +0000

Also it may pay to think if the US hadnt bombed the country back into the stone age the president might have less securty to worry about when visiting there?