Nail those Manchester leakers and send them to prison

So, we're supposed to be delighted that the New York Times has published leaked information  that authorities said endangers the investigation into the deadly Manchester bombing?

I suppose the  Times will be in line for another Pulitzer Prize for what amounts to making public information that could result in some guilty parties getting away or terrorists getting information that will help them pull off the next attack. Self-satisfaction among what used to be called a "profession" (i.e. journalism) will abound.

In the face of criticism, the Times released offered this statement wrapped in a cloak of self-righteousness:

The images and information presented were neither graphic nor disrespectful of victims, and consistent with the common line of reporting on weapons used in horrific crimes.

We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.

What a load of crap.

The British are, shall we say, pissed. And rightly so. It should be obvious to the thickest blockhead why releasing some of the information is counterproductive, destructive of trust and, at worst, deadly. Blame for the  next murderous attack could be on you, New York Times.

I suppose in World War II, the unauthorized release of information about where our troops were headed next would be greeted with hosannas in these times.

Yes, I know I'll be told that the Times has at times (how often?) wouldn't publish classified or other information in the public interest. Or how difficult it is to decide on a case-by-case basis what not to publish, as if I wouldn't know because I had never been in the newspaper business.

What I don't understand, though, is why someone thought it was important for the public to see this leaked information about the Manchester bombing. Or what political advantage it would give them to disclose the information. Or the how just the leaking of information feeds their ego and sense of self-importance.

Leaking such information is a crime. Sometime traitorously so. Prosecutors won't get anywhere by going after the Times. But Trump promises to track down the leakers who actually committed this high crime.  I hope he succeeds. Whether the guilty party is on  his side or the other side.

Read why Americans need to learn about the nation's most ignored war.

Find out what freelance editorial services I can provide for you.


Leave a comment
  • The same thinking also applies to Trump, the Leaker-in-Chief.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Absolutely. To both sides. This is not a partisan issue.

  • I trust the New York Times far more than any government.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Sometimes, sometimes not, from my viewpoint.

  • I just happened to mention New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). Also, did they publish anything confidential, or just pictures of the effects of the bomb?

    Should the Tribune be prosecuted for blowing the lid on Officer Van Dyke, or for even having the temerity to FOIA the video?

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: