Responsible journalism? Its social media outlets suppressing journalists against their will. There is a story with very significant public interest and not only are papers like the NYT consciously choosing to spike the story, but now social media companies are trying to silence the journalists who do print it. I'd venture that there are 10,000x more people in this country who would want to harm Donald Trump and his family than who would want to harm the whistleblower, and yet the NYT had no qualms about publishing a field guide on how to track down DTJ in public without any secret service near him just a week after James T. Hodgkinson shot up republican congressmen.

Big brother came to America and it wasn't 1984, the people didn't live in fear or ignorance, they cheered it and rationalized it. The same people who would scream about 'freedom of the press' any time Donald Trump disparages them will turn around and say journalists should be imprisoned for speaking Eric Ciaramella's name.

the whistleblower should have their job protected. especially since everything reported was "hearsay" evidence. (which is another story all in it's own) still, unless this person acted with corrupt ill-intent, their job should be protected.
it "should" also go without saying that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. both trump and whistleblower.

there is no way to prove anything without letting trump's legal team cross-examine witnesses and material.
the actual "whistleblower" doesn't as much matter (at surface), compared to the people he obtained this knowledge from. for they were obviously "leaking info without going through proper channels", instead we have a third person whistleblower.
we need the "whistleblower" to identify the people he learned this info from. they must be brought before the committee's and legal teams.
i'm hearing all of this is in the wrong committee though. (i've not had time to check on that yet)

Well, that's the choice of social media platforms. They are doing a cost/benefit analysis and landed on censoring the dude's name. Anyway, I don't really see what the big deal is regarding the whistle-blower outside of wanting to protect whistle-blowers in general. At this point, his views, testimony, experience, etc. are completely irrelevant.

People who say that journalists should be imprisoned for identifying individuals are silly.

i thought i was in a different thread with that last post of mine.
too many whistleblowers being treated differently, i'm getting lost.

my above statement stands if you replace the names to fit topic... generally.

i.e. if a criminal case is brought using the project veritas report as evidence. the whistleblower's testimony would be substantial evidence to the case.
the other side would have to cross-examine any of the evidence brought before them. there is no such thing as a "surprise witness".
evidence can change with surprise testimony, but each side still gets the chance to enter deposition with witnesses and ask questions.

should be protected from losing job if he/she still wants to work there though.

The 'cost' being suppressing people's political expression, journalism and speech by censoring discussion of a topic right from the national media outlets right down to private conversations between individuals
This is bigger than just a story about the whistleblower. It could be about anything. What makes this so scary is that we just witnessed a trial run for algorthmic and coordinated media censorship of a piece of information like big brother on steroids. We just saw the US internet, print media, TV & Radio just take a page out of China's authoritarian handbook and censor a name out of the public discourse, down to the precision of banning random youtube videos and deleting reddit and twitter comments. Wikipedia just put a rudimentary word filter on "Eric Ciaramella", but Youtube apparently either employed a massive army of moderators to manually flag videos en masse and/or they are using voice recognition algorithms to flag videos. Twitter has been left up to the discretion of individual mods, same with Reddit subs, whereas major media outlets have been uniformly censoring the name while Fox has been ambushed by a few guests that said it out loud anyway.

1984 got it wrong. Society didn't greet the censors with fear or meek compliance or need to be violently repressed, they cheered them on and proudly announced how moral they are.

Ridiculous, you would realise how silly you sound if the whistleblower was informing on clinton.

a whistleblower is worthless in criminal prosecution if they don't speak. you cannot anonymously testify. it is literally that simple. (nothing would happen to clinton without solid evidence)

i don't see anyone advocating for the censoring of the names edward snowden or julian assange here. (in response to your response to goom)
we can't even offer them fair trial.

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Nov 10 2019 09:04pm

I didn't hear you complain when they took down mass shooting live streams. Many people were interested in watching those yet they were heavily suppressed.

Those were crimes being livestreamed, innocent people dying live, on camera, in front of a huge audience. It should be obvious that that's very different from learning the name (and hence the partisan background) of a whistleblower who sits at the center of a scandal/process/trial with huge political implications for the entire country.



What makes this so scary is not the censorship, it's the betrayal by the mainstream media. They betray the original mission of the media, which is to uncover the truth, in favor of political calculus.
What it boils down to is that censorship would still not work in the U.S. if there was any honest, uncompromised mainstream media left which does its damn job.

The situation around Ciamarella and the spiked Robach-Epstein storyline have unceremoniously dropped the veil on a very bleak realization: the fourth power has been put into the hands of people who prefer to collude with those in charge rather than acting as a check on them.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 11 2019 11:03am

we know the whistleblower has partisan connections, knowing their name at this point is just cringey revenge porn.

all conservatives need to do is resign themselves to the idea that this whistleblower has an anti-trump boner, its not like it will change that the democrat house is calling for impeachment, nor that the senate will still fail to remove.

exposing the name at this point just sets them up to get Epstein'd. honestly the people calling for the name to be released should be ashamed. it changes nothing except your own bias against media being confirmed when we already have 1337x examples out there.