What’s with sources who think that it’s OK to leak sensitive information, and then request to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the information. I can’t even say this is information, since it sounds mostly like office gossip anyways (“heard through channels):
The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.
The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.
It’s not the identity of the sources which is the sensitive intelligence. What’s sensitive is the information that was just revealed!
Instead of integrity and “I’m sorry, I can’t reveal that information due to the sensitivity of that information.”, what we’re really getting is “Well, I shouldn’t be saying this, but blah blah blah. Please don’t use my name, I need to cover my own ass.”
Well, at least they were “two sources”… which apparently makes it fit to print? Hmmmm. I would think that when it involves potentially sensitive information, they should put a little more effort into determine the veracity of the story and show a little more restraint in going to press with it.
Help me to understand who we can acknowledge that information is sensitive and yet, publish it regardless?
