Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBL who wrote (31543)	2/2/1999 8:28:00 AM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

JBL, << After all the "leaking" this guy has been accused of, what exactly does he have to gain by "leaking" rather than just telling it staight in a press release. >> I think a lot of the problem for all of us is simply how degraded the entire process has become. As your question suggests, there's really no good reason for us to have to be talking about this subject in terms of news "leaks" to begin with. The story cites sources among Starr's associates who have agreed to speak only on condition that they remain anonymous. You have to work pretty hard to even remember a time when the notion of printing a story using "unnamed sources" was still considered a major issue. Back when it was, you might have felt the need to pay lip service to the idea of having actual, identified, verifiable, on the record sources -- and tried to provide some cover by using that kind of language (i.e. "sources agreed to speak only on the condition..."). Now it seems somewhat quaint. Also, back in the olden days, when every political news story was not automatically suspected of being a well crafted, strategically deployed weapon in the campaign of one side or the other to achieve world dominance, the universal suspicion in this case might simply have been that Starr's office was using the press to float a "trial balloon" to assess public opinion before proceeding. Nowadays, however, one side must be the villain and the other side must be the innocent victim. Hence, in this case, if I understand you correctly, the vile political WH flacks have once again cleverly designed and planted a thoroughly malicious story aimed solely at besmirching and impeding the wholly non-political and just going about the public's business in an innocent and harmless sort of way Independent Counsel Ken Starr. (Oh, but also remember that this is the ONLY thing these WH guys can manage to pull off - otherwise they are the most incompetent, ineffectual and pathetic administration in the entire history of the republic.) To which my reply is: yeah, right. Yes, I will keep an open mind on the subject - but I must also confess at this point to taking a somewhat jaundiced view of this and similar accusations. JD