Press freedom under threat!!!!

I agree that collateral damage is an issue, but our military shouldn’t be committing war crimes.
Just because the government might be embarrassed is no reason for everything to be stamped Top Secret.

 

Allegations of war crimes not matters of proven fact.

 

Yes.

 

Oh, sorry don't get me wrong, I don't condemn the facts presented, just the articles as presented. The reason the papers were top secret has nothing to do with government but protection of the people involved. As stated, the reports all suggested that the articles endangered people who help to bring this forward to the government and investigations along with prosecutions were made. Now again, I don’t know if the reporters made reference to particular people or places or they simply made statements that could have opened the door to identifying people. BUT they did force emergency action to move people into safety.

When we talk about whistle blowers and supporting them, we then see articles that endanger their lives for what purpose??? Just how much did YOUR life change knowing the intrinsic ins and outs of the reports??? Just how much did it change YOUR belief on what is right or wrong???


Understand this, WAR is not a nice Sunday afternoon activity. People who are at war do some horrendous things. It isn’t like kids sports days where the rules are followed and if somebody doesn’t follow them they get sent off. It involves people intent on winning at all costs facing others who hold the same belief. Why, because if they lose they are dead. They will do anything to get an advantage over their foe, no matter what. So, if we do have people who act in horrendous ways then yes they should be held accountable and so they are. The report is of the fact that this was done in secrecy.

Again, the question remains, just how many sacrifices should be allowed for reporters to get their accolades from fellow reports and just how much do YOU need to know??? There has to be a limit, but it is clear many think they are better off no matter how many lives are destroyed.

 

Who should be trusted to set the limit on what we are told?
Yes, whistle blowers should be protected.

 

Oh wow, that is a great question. Who should be???

Clearly the reporters cannot be, as the only limit they appear to abide is the belief of how many followers (so to speak) they can garner from each report. Decency and safety of others seem to be ignored so many times they clearly have little regard for others over the ideal of having the best story.

I personally think that Majority of Australians are decent and understanding enough to set their own standards of media, while clearly the media themselves revel in the heights of depravity. SO I presume the best people to trust to set the limits are the people. How would this be done, I hear you ask??? Well, perhaps they could elect a board of people to set standards and levels of reporters. Then they could also decide what particularly should remain secret and what could well be publically stated. Maybe that board should be able to act to bring people to account for indiscretions of the standards they set??? I don’t know, but that sounds a lot like a publicly elected body called “GOVERNMENT”

Eventually you have to let the government do the job they are elected for. Eventually you have to let judicial system do the job they are paid to do. I note the only thing being criticised by the government and opposition is timing, not the fact of the actions or the claims made by the AFP.

But Until you have better alternative for setting standards, questioning the people who set the reporting standards because you don’t agree with the policing of those standards is rather irrelevant.

 

It depends on the particular 'whistle' being blown. The first question any potential informant should ask is 'am I putting anyone's life at risk by disclosing what I know?' vs 'Am I putting anyone's life at risk if I don't disclose?

Should you disclose the fact that a Government Minister has lied to Parliament about a serious matter? IMO Probably. Should you disclose the fact that our government has a 'close' relationship an influential politician in a foreign country who has 'leaked' information about major political issues in that country - IMO probably not.

 

And yet the issue here is the endangerment of whistle blowers by people gaining papers that identifies them. Nobody in this case appears to be a whistle blower except the vicitms of the report.

 

Like Alexander Downer?

 

No really, Downer felt he had a legal and moral obligation to disclose what he did to US authorities and no lives were put at risk by doing so (even if Trump might have wanted to kill him!)