Latest news with #PentagonPapers
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Fighting words
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. LESS ... MORE Losses are inevitable in military ops. India's done the correct thing by acknowledging them In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies, Churchill said in WWII. Like tennis, where you can lose back-to-back sets and still win the match, war has its ups and downs, and it's good policy not to let the lows affect public morale. America knew it was losing Vietnam but never admitted it, until the 1971 Pentagon Papers leak. It never got a grip on Afghanistan in 20 years, but for the longest time maintained it had. In contrast, India has been surprisingly candid about its losses in Op Sindoor. While Pakistan claimed it had shot down five IAF jets on May 7 – the night raid that launched Op Sindoor – India neither confirmed nor denied it at the time. But shortly after the May 10 ceasefire, Air Marshal AK Bharti told a press conference, 'We are in a combat scenario and losses are part of combat.' And three weeks on, CDS Gen Anil Chauhan has more or less ended the suspense: 'What I can say is that on May 7, in the initial stages, there were losses.' But not six planes, as Pakistan is now claiming. This acknowledgment is a measure of India's morale. The country does not need to cover up because Op Sindoor achieved all its objectives. As for making a full disclosure, that can wait till the operation is over – it's only suspended post-ceasefire. Besides, as the CDS said, more than the numbers, what mattered was the reasons for the losses, and a course correction, which India made. India's official responses may have seemed slow, but they adhered to facts. Dangers of the alternative – unverified claims – were brought home on May 8 when some TV channels abdicated all journalistic responsibility and spread wild untruths. While it might have seemed patriotic to those in front of the cameras, it only increased the military's burden. The CDS said 15% of operational time during Op Sindoor was spent countering fake narratives and disinformation. Later, the audience's unreasonable expectations, stoked by disinformation, resulted in the vicious trolling of foreign secretary Vikram Misri, who along with Col Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh had been the face of India's factual and measured media response during the hostilities. If Op Sindoor proved one thing, it's that riding the tiger of disinformation is always folly. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing. But, the history of the last 100 years has been changed very much for the better by the leaking of unauthorised information. For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control – they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional implications…then it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. Moreover…the government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. Basically….by limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which case…as mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Gordon Campbell On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control - they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
CNBC
22-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Bill Gates: These 5 books are the ‘best memoirs I've read'—including 1 by an author who 'changed the course of my life'
Bill Gates recommends spending your summer reading five of the best memoirs he's ever encountered. The billionaire Microsoft co-founder's Summer 2025 list of book recommendations is an eclectic collection of memoirs featuring personal insights and anecdotes from a rock star, a journalist, a comedian, a historian and the first-ever female CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Gates has some very recent familiarity with the genre, having published his first memoir, "Source Code," in February. For him, writing a personal memoir represented a difficult new challenge, so he relied on his own favorite books from the genre to determine "what I could draw on from the best memoirs I've read," he wrote on Thursday while announcing the list. "I feel like I'm always learning, but I really go into serious learning mode when I'm starting out on a new project," wrote Gates. Now, Gates is offering up the list of his favorite memoirs as potential inspiration for other people. All five were published by published by Penguin Random House, which also published "Source Code," or one of its imprints. "I hope you can find something that interests you on this list," Gates wrote. "Memoirs are a good reminder that people have countless interesting stories to tell about their lives." Here are the five books Gates recommends cracking open during your free time this summer: Katharine Graham was the longtime publisher of The Washington Post, taking the reins of her family's media conglomerate in 1963 after the death of her father and her husband's suicide. Her memoir, published in 1997, reveals her own initial wariness at the idea of taking the helm, especially "at a time when few women were in leadership positions like that," Gates notes. By the time she died, in 2001, Graham had grown her company's revenue by more than $1 billion, according to The Washington Post. "This thoughtful memoir is a good reminder that great leaders can come from unexpected places," Gates wrote. Gates first met Graham in July 1991, on the same day he also first met longtime friend Warren Buffett, he wrote. Graham's legacy includes "standing up to President Nixon to protect the paper's reporting on Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, negotiating the end to a pressman's strike, and much more," Gates noted. In 1997, Nicholas Kristoff wrote a New York Times article on children dying from diarrhea and other ailments in poor countries — due to a lack of clean drinking water — that "changed the course of my life," wrote Gates. The article helped inspire the Gates Foundation's philanthropic work to improve global health, Gates has said. Now, he recommends Kristof's 2024 memoir, which covers the 40-year career of the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. "[Kristof's] reported from more than 150 countries, covering war, poverty, health, and human rights," Gates wrote. "In this terrific memoir, Nick writes about how he stays optimistic about the world despite everything he's seen." Tara Westover's bestselling memoir originally appeared on Gates' list of the best books he read in 2018, the year it was published. In the book, Westover recounted her childhood as the youngest of seven children raised in a family of fundamentalist Mormon survivalists in rural Idaho. Westover wrote about suffering physical abuse at the hands of a sibling, and being mostly cut off from outside society due to her parents' strict religious beliefs. She eventually broke free from her family to attend college, ultimately earning a PhD in intellectual history from The University of Cambridge's Trinity College. Her harrowing memoir is inspiring and, in some ways, broadly relatable, according to Gates. "At some point in your childhood, you go from thinking your parents know everything to seeing them as adults with limitations," he wrote. "Tara beautifully captures that process of self-discovery in this unforgettable memoir." This 2016 memoir from the comedian and former host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" recounts Trevor Noah's childhood growing up biracial in South Africa's apartheid regime, which had outlawed interracial relationships like his parents'. Gates repeated the praise he first wrote about Noah's book, for the billionaire's 2017 summer reading list: "As a longtime fan of 'The Daily Show,'" Gates wrote at the time, "I loved reading this memoir about how its host honed his outsider approach to comedy over a lifetime of never quite fitting in." Gates called the U2 frontman's book "the best memoir by a rock star I actually know" in 2022. The Dublin-born Bono, whose given name is Paul Hewson, wrote about his path to becoming a rock star despite his parents basically ignoring his musical talents at a young age. Their indifference "made him try even harder to get their attention," Gates wrote. The rocker "shows a lot of vulnerability in this surprisingly open memoir," noted Gates, adding that he was inspired to follow suit: "It was a great model for how I could be open about my own challenges in 'Source Code.'" ,
CNBC
13-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Warren Buffett: ‘Every American citizen ought to watch' this documentary on the Fortune 500's first female CEO
Warren Buffett's retirement announcement got most of the attention at Berkshire Hathaway's 2025 annual meeting, but the billionaire investor also used the event to share a "fascinating" movie recommendation. "Check out 'Becoming Katharine Graham' and you'll see a remarkable story of American history," Buffett told attendees at the meeting, which took place on May 4. The documentary, which started streaming on Amazon Prime in February, covers the life of the longtime publisher of The Washington Post who led the newspaper through pivotal historical moments, including its reporting on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. "There are a good many portions in there that I, who lived through that period, didn't know about at that time. And I think every American citizen ought to watch it," said Buffett, 94, who also announced his impending retirement as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway during the annual meeting. Buffett has "no financial interest" in the film, he said, but he does appear in it as a longtime friend of Graham's who used to own a significant stake in the Post. Graham died in 2001, at age 84. Buffett's relationship with the newspaper goes back more than eight decades. When he was young, his family moved to Washington, D.C. upon his father's election to U.S. Congress. At age 13, Buffett woke up at 4:30 every morning to earn money delivering The Washington Post to his later, Buffett invested $11 million in The Washington Post Company, the holding company that owned the newspaper. He made the investment in 1973, just a year after Graham took the reins to become the first female CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Buffett wrote a letter to Graham at the time, informing her that he was buying significant shares in her public company, which he believed was "dramatically undervalued." In the letter, which Graham included in her 1997 autobiography, "Personal History," Buffett also included his endorsement of Graham as a CEO. After buying those shares, Buffett served on the company's board of directors for nearly four decades, until 2011 — often sharing his investment advice with Graham. In the documentary, Graham noted about Buffett: "He used to come to board meetings with about 20 annual reports, and he would take me through these annual reports. I mean, it was like going to business school with Warren Buffet." At Berkshire Hathaway's 2013 meeting, Buffett lauded the number of large U.S. companies run by women: "It's moving in the right direction ... But, you know, I hope it keeps moving and moving faster." There were 20 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 at the time. Last year, there were 52, according to Fortune. Buffett's bet on Graham and the newspaper proved fruitful. The company's "stock went up 40-for-1 when she was CEO," he noted during the 2013 meeting. By 2014, Buffett held a 23.4% stake in the company, now called Graham Holdings, which owns an assortment of properties in the media, health care and automotive industries. (The company sold The Washington Post to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos for $250 million in 2013.) When Buffett sold his shares in Graham Holdings in 2014, his stake was valued at nearly $1.1 billion, The Washington Post reported at the time. At the 2025 Berkshire meeting, Buffett said documentary viewers would likely learn a lot from Graham's life and career: "People don't remember enough about Katharine Graham, [her] story shaped America in many ways."
