Forum Home | Login

Could & should a 'deep throat' informer be successful today?

terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

Could & should a 'deep throat' informer be successful today?

With today's outting of the identity of the original Watergate-era 'deep throat' (see Dr. Guy's article: Deep Throat Outed or any major news source, including The Washington Post for more news on the topic) I'm left with a few questions that were somewhat inspired by AM Talk radio on WMAL (AM630, DC) on the topic.

Hopefully I'm not borrowing too much from afternoon drive host Chris Core, but if I am, then apologies.

A few questions worth discussion and commentary by other folks here at JoeUser.

1. Could a 'deep throat' type character be successful today, or are we living in a time (thanks to CBS News, the New York Times, Newsweek, and a few other sources lately) when we need much more than one single source for a major story -- especially, for example, if we are talking about a story that could result in the impeachment of a high government official (to be fair, lets say it's any high government official, not just the President of the U.S. It could be a Supreme Court justice, the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Minority leader, or any other highly placed and influential government official)?

2. If we were to see a deep throat style character again, should that individual be successful and considered a hero for cleaning up government corruption, or would that individual be considered a traitorous disgrace?

As an example for question number two, lets hypothetically bring in some cases from both the current and the past president so that both parties can be considered and we won't (hopefully) play party favorites (but get ready for question number 3 to follow).

For my hypothetical (or feel free to substitute an example or two of you own), lets say that the Democratic President's administration is guilty of some things that have been insinuated against the current administration through their pushing for and use of the Patriot act: the Democratic administration has been spying on individual citizens, snooping at tax returns trying to get donor information and/or use confidential tax return information and other sensitive FBI file information to blackmail people into contributing to the DNC. If a highly placed official that was able to verify what was happening leaked that information to the press which started a full scale Watergate type investigation would you consider them a hero or a traitor? (And just to be sure, lets say this happened during the pre-9/11 times, with no Patriot act to use to even remotely make legal any of the snooping that was going on)

For the Republican example, lets try something similar to the "No Way Out" (the Costner movie from the 1980/1990 time frame) where a highly placed government official is keeping a mistress who threatens to spill the details of the relationship and instead is murdered during a drug or alcohol induced post-sexual encounter fight. The act is covered up with the disappearance of the body and some made up story about the woman leaving town. If you wish, a Chandra Levy (look up Gary Condit and/or Chandra Levy if you don't get the reference) type situation. Again, if someone highly placed had information about these occurences, would you consider them a hero for releasing the information to the press, or no?

With those relatively clear cut hypotheticals laid out, can you suggest other situations when you would be less inclined to cheer for a 'deep throat' and more inclined to consider them a traitor? For example, lets say someone has militarily significant and important information that could result in the deaths of troops, but which relates to practices that are questionable. Should the informant release the story even if it compromises the safety of the troops, or sit on the information?

3. Would your answer to question number 2 change depending on the party in power, or can you honestly and truthfully say that regardless of party affiliation corruption and illegal activities would be bad and should never be tolerated (therefore you would want a deep throat type character, and would consider them a hero)?

The jist of the questions is would a deep throat character be something we want now or not?

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

actually what i was saying was it would be news cuz it's unexpected. dog bites man aint news.

True. But why has the vast majority of tainted money, contrary to your factless allegation, been on the democrat side? It would seem that the Press would yell to high heaven if they found any on the Republican side (and have in lower contests), but the fact they have not tends to indicate that where there is no smoke, there is usually no fire.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

First, Barney Frank

and the answer is...???

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

kingbee -

The point is not that one side is "clean" and one side is "dirty" - they're both "both" - it's that the MSM ignore one side's dirt, or sometimes claim it as a virtue.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

and the answer is...???

Yep, that is the answer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

it's that the MSM ignore one side's dirt, or sometimes claim it as a virtue.

it's all a matter of perspective. and it stands to reason there's a lot less disney/capcities, ge and westinghouse wants seen than i suspect yall would ever concede.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

Yep, that is the answer

if youre gonna suggest barney frank is a prostitute like jeff gannon, then you aint got a whole lotta moral ground from which to condemn unsubstantiated allegations.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry ... I cant resisit,... but being on the other side of the world and not really old enough to know what happened ... when I saw the title to this article I couldnt help but think of something else. .. Im glad you cleared it up for me..

Successfully updated karma reason!

if youre gonna suggest barney frank is a prostitute like jeff gannon, then you aint got a whole lotta moral ground from which to condemn unsubstantiated allegations.

Did you suggest that Bush was? No, you only indicted one of Bush supporters who did not live with Bush was. So I just showed you the other side of the slippery slope.

You are too smart to be this obtuse kb, but nice try anyway.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

if being obtuse means i can't make sense of the following:

how about prostitute who pretends to be a journalist? or columnists who are paid to shill for the administration?

First, Barney Frank

if youre gonna suggest barney frank is a prostitute like jeff gannon, then you aint got a whole lotta moral ground from which to condemn unsubstantiated allegations.

Did you suggest that Bush was? No, you only indicted one of Bush supporters who did not live with Bush was. So I just showed you the other side of the slippery slope.
You are too smart to be this obtuse kb, but nice try anyway.

perhaps i'm obtuse.

hopefully this has nothing to do with frank being gay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: