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