Tag Archives: ethics

Legal Protection for Whistleblowers

Posted on by
Reply

Jay Solomon, writing for The Free Press, wants legal protection for whistleblowers, and under the color of that, he also wants protection for journalists who are harboring “confidential,” or some such, sources.

One of the things that makes America exceptional is that journalists here have freedoms that exist nowhere else. … That also requires the freedom to rely on confidential sources to get that information.

The problem with this is that actual whistleblowers already have lots of legal protection for what they run up their chains of command, to Congress, and ultimately to the public. Beyond that, the freedom that that exists nowhere else apparently includes freedom from the laws that ordinary Americans must obey: laws barring receiving and profiting from goods that were illegally obtained by the transferor.

What Solomon wants, what he’s conflating with whistleblower disclosures, even though he should know better, is protection for journalists who publish leaks, those illegally obtained goods (which might—might—be OK), and for leakers who are doing the leaking.

Some sources who talk to journalists are, in fact, whistleblowers. Most, though, are simply acting, on the face of it, illegally, by transferring those goods—which maybe they obtained illegally or maybe they obtained in the legitimate course of their duties—in violation of the terms of their employment or their oaths of office. These leakers also are hiding behind anonymity, supposedly out of fear for their jobs—but that just shows either their recognition of the illegality of their actions or their own lack of moral principles as they put their jobs ahead of their moral obligation to do a right thing, or both. Leakers are entitled to no protection whatsoever.

Moreover, journalistic claims that a source is a whistleblower doesn’t make it so. The journalist must provide evidence that the claimed source is, in fact, a whistleblower, vis., evidence that the source has exhausted all of his whistleblower avenues. Having shown that, the journalist must—at the very least for credibility’s sake—identify the whistleblower. A whistleblower source no longer needs anonymity; he has the legal protections of whistleblowing. The whistleblower work environment might still be uncomfortable, but in that case, refer to “job ahead of doing a right thing” above.

In the particular case at Solomon’s hand, in which a reporter is being held in legal jeopardy over her refusal to reveal the source(s) she used in her reporting in 2017, the reporter throughout her reporting and at all opportunities since, declined to provide any evidence at all that her source(s), which she claims were whistleblowers, were in fact whistleblowers and that those sources had exhausted all of their whistleblowing avenues within the organizations that employed them, before the source(s) talked to the reporter. As a result of the reporter’s refusal to reveal her source(s),

In February, US District Court judge Christopher Cooper held her in contempt of court—and fined her $800 a day—until she turned over her confidential sources. Although he said he “recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge,” he added that he was required to strike a balance between press freedom and that Yanping Chen’s “need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.”

Solomon, like the judge (despite his on the whole correct ruling) is conflating whistleblower with confidential source, even though the two are distinctly separate from each other, similar only in their willingness to talk to reporters, but radically different in the legal protections they have.

Press freedom advocates, however, fear that [the judge’s] ruling against Herridge could cripple the ability of journalists to protect whistleblowers and confidential sources to provide critical information to the public.

Solomon, and his press freedom advocates, are making a specious argument with this claim. Whistleblowers need no journalistic protection. Leakers deserve none.

Overarching that, in years past, editors required reporters to have in their articles at least two on-the-record sources that corroborate the claims of their “confidential” sources. The press industry has long since walked away from that requirement, and no one in the industry has been willing since to say what publicly available and concretely measurable standard of journalistic integrity is in use today in place of that erstwhile standard.

Those on-the-record sources are all the protection journalists would need, too, were today’s journalists not too lazy to find and use them.

Audit Failure and a Target for Reduction in Force

Posted on by
Reply

The Pentagon has failed, again, the audit of its finances. This makes seven in a row, and it calls into question how hard the relevant officers and civilians are trying, along with their level of competence.

A total of 1,700 auditors worked on the 2024 audit, which cost about $178 million.
A breakdown of the audit found that 15 of the 28 standalone financial audits received a failing grade….

Pentagon Comptroller Michael McCord:

…the Department has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges[.]

After seven years.

As Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy look around the Federal government for places to cut, and as SecDef nominee Pete Hegseth (assuming he’s confirmed, even as the Left and their Progressive-Democrats ramp up their smear campaigns) looks into the Pentagon establishment he’d be overseeing, here is a lucrative, target-rich environment to enter.

A RIF is a Reduction in Force, a move whereby the military branches occasionally winnow down their ranks of officers and enlisted that each branch deems excess to its needs. The financial types—both military and civilian—in the Pentagon’s budgeting and acquisition sections, from supervisors on down, have by their successive and apparently determined failure to perform have self-selected for RIF. Start with McCord and his disingenuosity.

The RIF shouldn’t be limited to these folks, though. To the extent they’re getting bad, or merely slow, data with which to work, Pentagon training staff (and training is at the center of the Pentagon’s mission), branch Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, and their financial staffs should be similarly targeted, over and above the Secretaries and Chiefs themselves being fireable by the incoming President for reasons suitable to the President.

Nor should it stop there. The Combatant Commands and the supporting commands—supply, transport, personnel, and so on—need to be closely scrutinized with a view to assessing the quality and timeliness of the data they’re sending to the Pentagon. Those personnel, again both military and civilian and again regardless of rank or position in the hierarchy, need to be RIFed also.

No doubt, this will lead, if carried out with sufficient breadth and depth, to a large reduction in the personnel complement of the Pentagon and of those additional establishments.

That opens up a twofer. Many of the critics of Hegseth’s nomination stew openly about his lack of experience in leading so large an organization as Defense. One approach for dealing with that is to shrink Defense. These RIFs would go a long way in that direction.

More Free Speech Leftist-Style

Posted on by
Reply

As if we don’t need another example of Leftist censorship version of free speech, Ezra Klein, of the text [of our Constitution] is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago infamy, provides us with another.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein slammed Democrats over their stubborn denials that US cities are plagued with rising crime, out-of-control migration, and skyrocketing prices….

To this point, Klein is right to decry the Progressive-Democratic Party’s foolishness.

As reported by the New York Post (the article is behind a paywall, but the tabloid’s subscription cost isn’t worth the candle), though, Klein couldn’t stop there, and he expressed a core tenet of Party:

And this idea that “The economy is actually good,” or “Crime is actually down, this is all just Fox News,” shut the f–k up with that[.]

Because speech of which Klein personally disapproves—even if he’s correct in its thrust—cannot be allowed. Free speech is only what he, or his Leftist cronies, say it is. It’s certainly not what that old-young Constitution of ours says it is. Of course, I have it on similarly good authority that [our Constitution] has no binding power on anything, anyway, so there’s that.

Duplicity

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) on ending the filibuster:

Over the coming weeks, the Senate will once again consider how to perfect this union and confront the historic challenges facing our democracy. We hope our Republican colleagues change course and work with us. But if they do not, the Senate will debate and consider changes to Senate rules [eliminating the filibuster]….

And

In a session with reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Schumer (D-NY) suggested that—should Democrats win the White House, Senate, and House in November—he would seek to end the filibuster for purposes of passing voting rights and abortion legislation.

These are deliberate moves to pass legislation unilaterally, in complete absence even of any pretense of bipartisanship.

Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) today:

The only way to get things done in the Senate is through bipartisan legislation while maintaining our principles—and the next two years will be no different.

Only because, despite Schumer’s efforts, the filibuster remains intact. Nevertheless, his meaning is plain. He’ll have his caucus being just as knee-jerk obstructionist of any Republican initiative as he always has had, now with the added fillip of knee-jerk obstructionism regarding anything Trumpian, just as he had done during the prior Trump administration.

Assuming the Republicans are able to retain their majority in the House, he’ll also have able functional allies—if unintended—in the Republicans’ Chaos Caucus.

“Gatekeepers of Political Discourse”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s how even The Wall Street Journal terms the press. This, as it notices the decreasing control influence the press has on what us average Americans are allowed to know about the political doings of our politicians.

A new media landscape has emerged. The traditional gatekeepers of political discourse—TV networks and newspapers—are shrinking in influence as Americans turn to many more outlets for information.

This comes especially in the wake of the last eight-ish years of naked bias by the press, a period wherein The New York Times has openly announced that there can no longer be objectivity in news reporting, newspapers must take sides, and a major broadcast news anchor announced that there are not two sides to every story; there can be only one side to many. In furtherance of those decisions, the press actively proselytizes on its news pages for its chosen candidates and party while actively suppressing stories that provide different information or that show their denigrated party and candidates in a good light. The press also suppresses stories that cast its chosen party/candidate in a negative light.

Beyond politics, the press actively spikes writing that contradicts its settlement of climate “science,” with the Los Angeles Times saying that it would no longer publish letters to the editor that disputed the LAT‘s determination of the proper discussion.

It’s no wonder that us average Americans no longer take the press seriously and are moving away from it toward other sources—including straight from the horse’s mouth in the podcasts that are becoming ubiquitous, and on some social media outlets like X, Truth Social, even the dangerous TikTok. If we can’t entirely trust these alternative outlets, we can at least hear what the candidates—and other guests—are saying, without the gatekeepers’ censorship filter.