When it comes to media stories about "leaks" from intelligence agencies,

[MineralMan]

caution is advised before believing such stories. If they quote some anonymous "official," they're probably bullshit, made up to lend weight to some theory some journalist has.

Leaks are rare from agencies like the NSA, CIA and FBI. The one thing those agencies are good at is not revealing anything that is happening inside their doors. They may be incompetent in other ways, but they aren't talking, on or off the record, with any media people and telling tales about what is happening at that agency.

It's simply not done. So, if you see something that says "A ranking official at the {insert ABC agency} said that..." it's probably something made up by a journalist more interested in pressing the point in a story than actual fact. Journalism isn't what it once was, and there are plenty of bogus stories on internet venues in particular.

People at those agencies do not talk about those agencies to journalists. They just don't.

[SHRED]

1. Not even during these extraordinary times?

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. Not even then.

Anyone who is a "senior official" at one of our intelligence gathering agencies has seen many "extraordinary times." It would be very rare for someone high enough in the organization to know such things to say anything at all to the media. Vanishingly rare, actually.

[HopeAgain]

3. I would agree with you as a general rule, except...

I do find it interesting that Trump let loose a barrage of tweets this morning attacking the intelligence agencies. He basically admitted they are giving out intelligence "like candy." More attacks on the intelligence community and less denial.

Not that I am saying we should believe everything we hear, but when you are investigating your own President, leaks may be the only way to get crucial information out and prevent it from being buried by your superiors who are more subject to the political pressures.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think NYT and WaPo still vet their sources pretty well when it comes to something this important. It is, however, an important reminder that there is undoubtedly a lot of "fake news" (I've gotten to the point I hate those two words) on all fronts.

[MineralMan]

4. OK, but we're also seeing stuff from somewhat less proven

media outlets. We make a mistake when we automatically believe stories published just anywhere. Yes, the NYT and WP try to follow some sort of journalistic standards, at least in their news reporting. But they also carry a lot of columns by people they aren't closely fact-checking.

It's fine to be interested in such stories but, without verification, anonymous sources need to be looked at skeptically. Always.

[cheyanne]

5. These are not leakers, they are WHISTLEBLOWERS. . .

When an agency is colluding in illegal actions by government officials, people who know need to speak up. This is not the time to go along to get along . . .

[First Speaker]

6. It has happened. Mark Felt and Bob Woodward is the classic case...

...but I agree that it's very rare, and these stories should be taken with a ton of salt. I remember, back in the 60s, a close family friend worked for the FBI, and some of the JFK assassination material came thru his desk. Many years later, after he retired, he told me that it was obvious the Bureau had totally fucked up their investigation, and that Oswald was obviously innocent, and that there had been a cover-up, probably for "patriotic" reasons--"we can't have the world thinking we're a banana republic", that sort of thing. I asked him if he ever considered leaking, the way Deep Throat--Felt--had during Watergate. He just laughed at the naivete of the question. And told me that Felt wouldn't have said a word if Hoover had still been alive. But then the whole Watergate business would have been totally different, in that case...