this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
103 points (94.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

2414 readers
268 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
103
Publish the Leaked Trump Texts (www.kenklippenstein.com)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Atlantic announced today that its editor was inadvertently added to a group text including the Vice President, CIA Director, Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor where they discussed Yemen war moves and other matters of national security. The Trump administration’s carelessness would soon be outdone by the squeamishness of the magazine.

Editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg took the scoop of a lifetime and chose to act as gatekeeper, publishing only the most innocuous tidbits like what emojis different officials used and their goofy backslapping instead of the actual news. It is one of the worst cases of media paternalism, what I call highchair journalism — open up for your infotainment, here comes the airplane: Trump officials used emojis, LOL! — but also a disturbing reminder of how much the mainstream media have been co-opted by the national security state.

Goldberg makes clear in his article that his standard for publication isn’t newsworthiness, but the mere possibility that the information “could conceivably” be used by adversaries of the United States. The media isn’t or shouldn’t be in the business of helping the government. Like an attorney, the media are supposed to have a duty to their client, the public.

Consider how Goldberg describes his decision to not publish a text sent by CIA Director John Ratcliffe based merely on the possibility that the information “might be interpreted as related to” ongoing intelligence matters:

Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.” The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.”

That’s exactly the kind of news the public needs. Is the Houthi campaign cover for a broader war with Iran? How serious is the Trump administration’s consideration of the effects? Or the potential for escalation? Or the potential for any kind of success?

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minnow@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Publishing classified information, no matter how innocuous or unharmful, is still illegal and it would be a dumb fucking thing for The Atlantic, or even a private citizen* to do.

However I'm to understand that since then a government representative has said that nothing in the conversation was classified and The Atlantic is now considering whether to publish everything.

Absolutely nothing about this story indicates that The Atlantic or any of its employees are "working for the government" or anything like that. They were just trying to not break any long-standing laws that 100% would land them in prison for a long time.

This is a great example if Occam's Razor. Is it all a conspiracy between the government and a news organization in good standing (ie not Fox News/OAN/etc)? No, somebody just didn't want to go to prison for a stupid reason, so he held back a little to play it safe.

*of course private citizens have published classified material before and they did us a great service by doing so, BUT that information was, generally, worth it

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago

The Republicans involved are lying and saying it's not confidential when infact it is. That is the sole reason it hasn't been leaked.

He will go to jail if he releases them, but they can lie about it with impunity.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Publishing classified information, no matter how innocuous or unharmful, is still illegal

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/

We've got pretty good case law to show that freedom of the press goes pretty far, and that since the public has a pretty clear interest in the information it's pretty much a given they can publish it.
If they prosecuted the Atlantic for it, they'd also need to hold that whoever sent them the classified information was guilty of the same offense.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That was worth it. The chat messages seem to be boring war plans and verbal attacks on Europe. There seems to be little public service value in the unpublished.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Have you read the messages? According to the person who decided not to publish them there was stuff potentially more significant.
War plans being accidentally sent to a journalist is intrinsically in the public interest.

I was unaware the classified information being "boring" was a good reason for a news outlet to self censor.

Also... The Pentagon papers were literally just "boring war plans". War plans often contain motivation and desired outcomes, which are sometimes big news.

[–] minnow@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was unaware the classified information being "boring" was a good reason for a news outlet to self censor.

Unless the concern had nothing to do with newsworthiness so much as the cost:reward ratio of publishing vs the expense of litigation against the Trump administration.

As far as you know, their intent has always been to publish and they were waiting for advice from their lawyers. You just keep jumping to conclusions though. Maybe try giving some benefit of the doubt. Again, it's not like they're Fox News or AON. These are people genuinely trying to do the right thing (even if they mess up sometimes) (within the context of a late stage capitalist society).

To be clear: I'm not saying they're innocent and that you're wrong; I'm saying you don't know. So maybe chill a little.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I think you're confusing me with someone else, because I've been perfectly chil, and I haven't jumped to any conclusions.

Person I replied to said they shouldn't publish because it's classified. We have case law that says freedom of the press outweighs that with a very high bar for exceptions. We shouldn't censor ourselves just because the news, which is currently the focus of a lot of talk, is "boring". Make them actually ask at least.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was unaware the classified information being "boring" was a good reason for a news outlet to self censor.

Well, yes it is. Having no public interest is the definition of boring. The pentagon papers 1. were about things in the past 2. told that the US was lying about the scope of its involvement and strikes in the Vietnam war 3. involve previously-unknown motivations and thus are not boring especially in light of point 2. On the other hand, it is extremely conceivable that the unleaked chat room parts 1. contain future strike targets 2. have no untold of past targets 3. are, in fact ,boring, most likely just "at X am move Y battleship to Z position and fire at A".

Publishing future war plans can compromise military operation, which is going to get you prosecuted very heavily and in the spirit of national security laws already passed and make a lot of normal people really angry at you.

https://lemm.ee/comment/19187548

Meanwhile, there is no public interest about the precise movements of the military in executing an operation the scale of which is known.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, it's all moot. The white House insisted that nothing in the messages was classified and called him a liar, so he published the full transcript, which showed that people had lied to Congress and leaked the details of upcoming operations before they happened, as well as the identity of individuals not typically made public.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 4 days ago

Good thing they have the moral high ground now that they've called the White House's bluff.

[–] PurpleSkull@lemm.ee 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

No.

The redacted part included actionable details and apparently names of agents, bases and a description of their military capabilities or lack thereof. Publishing that WILL get those people killed, Russia has a lot of planes around the middle east. It would not serve the public at all, as it should be more concerned about the intent to bomb a country based on pretty much nothing and the obvious problem of a security breach. It would however serve foreign adversaries. Which brings me to my next question, who the f is "Ken Klippenstein" and is he maybe paid by an entity that absolutely would love to know those juicy military details?

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 5 days ago

His work with The Young Turks started as early as 2018.[18] In 2020, Klippenstein joined The Nation as their D.C. correspondent.[8] On April 30, 2024, Klippenstein announced in his newsletter that he was resigning from The Intercept and would primarily work on his own.[5]

On September 26, 2024, Klippenstein shared a dossier on vice-presidential candidate JD Vance, reportedly hacked from the Trump campaign and subsequently leaked by Iran, in his newsletter and linked to it from his X account.[19][20] Klippenstein's Twitter account was then suspended.[21]

On December 10, 2024, Klippenstein published an alleged full text manifesto of Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the killing of Brian Thompson.[22] In an interview with Democracy Now!, Klippenstein blamed paternalistic attitudes in corporate media and the possibility of alienating law enforcement sources for the reluctance to publish the alleged manifesto's full text.[23][24]

[–] jaek@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Publishing that WILL get those people killed

And the people that they're stationed there to kill don't matter?

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Looks like you lost the URL's final character
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trump-admin-caught-making-war-by

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 5 days ago

only the most innocuous tidbits like what emojis different officials used and their goofy backslapping

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/world/europe/signal-jeffrey-goldberg-message-hegseth.html

Now Europe Knows What Trump’s Team Calls It Behind Its Back: ‘Pathetic’