Slashdot Log In
In Leaked Email, NASA Chief Vents On Shuttle Program's End
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:07 AM
from the just-jealous-of-garriot dept.
from the just-jealous-of-garriot dept.
jerryasher writes "In a leaked memo, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin discusses 'the jihad' to prematurely terminate the Shuttle and what that means for the International Space Station. One implication: there may come a long interval when only our Russian Allies are aboard the Space Station. Add that bit of irony to your new cold war kit and then wonder why Griffin discusses why we wouldn't sabotage the Space Station, and how and why the memo got leaked in the first place."
Related Stories
[+]
SpaceX Gets Operational License For Cape Canaveral 133 comments
FiggyOO writes "For those of you who witnessed the launch of SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket, launch 3, you will be glad to hear that SpaceX has received a license to launch from space complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on the Florida coast. This Launch complex is just south of launch pads 39A and 39B which have been used to launch the space shuttles, and will continue in that role for a few more years. This launch complex will enable SpaceX to launch the much-anticipated Falcon 9 rocket, which will eventually carry the Dragon capsule. In doing so, SpaceX hopes to fill the void between the end of the shuttle program and the coming of the Constellation. They have already begun moving into the launch complex, including moving a 125,000 gallon liquid oxygen tank on the back of a semi." We've been following Elon Musk's SpaceX for years.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So let's stop faffing around (Score:4, Interesting)
And get something new and awesomer in the skies to replace it.
Something that could get people going wow again would be nice.
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Funny)
And get something new and awesomer in the skies to replace it.
Something that could get people going wow again would be nice.
I would also like a pony.
Parent
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Insightful)
"And get something new and awesomer in the skies to replace it.
Something that could get people going wow again would be nice."
Not going to happen. Not now. Not for another 30 years or more.
Afghanistan
Iraq.
Do I dare look at the expenses incurred for the latter? No. There is nothing I can do about it, and all it will do is fill me with rage.
And now, due to criminal lack of oversight (because regulation is BAD, Right?!),
THIS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7602992.stm [bbc.co.uk]
This administration has fucked us all for sure. Forget the Shuttle. Forget the ISS. Forget the Moon. Forget Mars. Forget space exploration. Forget inspiring kids to become engineers and scientists.
Forget dreaming at all, for we can no longer afford it. Our future has been pissed away in 8 years.
Welcome to total, complete, utter incompetent management by the Shrub and his apparatchiks.
The first words spoken by the next President after being sworn in this January and looking at the real numbers: "What the fuck is this shit?"
--
BMO
Parent
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why do it now? Why not let the next administration decide?"
Because the problem is so large, and such an emergency, that it /must/ be dealt with right now. Word is that that without the bailout, we had two weeks before the shit hit the fan.
It's true what's been said, that Fannie and Freddie were "too big to fail." Failure without a buyout would have caused...utter chaos - literally runs on the banks not seen since 1929.
And I'm not kidding about criminal lack of oversight. We already know the books were cooked over there to make things look rosier than they were.
The CEOs of Fannie and Freddie lost their jobs because of that. BFD. They probably deserve jail time, but I won't hold my breath.
I lived through the RISDIC crisis, and this is the same stuff, just writ REALLY LARGE. 9 percent of all home loans, nationally, in arrears or in default? What? Here in Rhode Island, it's 32 percent. Apparently that's for real, and this stuff has just started. Trust me, this has just started.
And we still want to go to Mars. Har. Unlikely.
--
BMO
Parent
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is to try to help avoid a financial market crash and the economy from plunging farther and more quickly into the shitter."
Oh, I know. I know too well. We had no choice.
Read my previous message.
This is the result of out-and-out fraud. However, while I live in a country where we have the highest per capita rate of imprisonment, the people responsible will never see the inside of a cell. Not even for a second. Trust me on this. We jail potsmokers instead.
--
BMO
Parent
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Interesting)
"Somehow, I suppose the occupation of Iraq must be profitable after all, otherwise it would only be logical to withdraw troops from there. Same for Afghanistan."
We need a -1 Naive tag.
You need to read up on the Project for a New American Century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm [newamericancentury.org]
Please note the date.
Please note who the members of PNAC are and who signed the Mission Statement.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm [newamericancentury.org]
Let me know when you finish screaming.
--
BMO
Parent
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some American companies are certainly making money off of the whole thing. It's just that the money isn't coming from where you think it is. Let me clarify. This isn't a war where the USA is looting Iraq (they've done a lot to that country, but looting isn't part of it). This is a war where one segment of the USA (the military industrial complex) is effectively looting the rest of the USA. And their government seems to take turns being too oblivious, evil, or simply too incompetent to do anything about it.
Parent
Deregulation caused the crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the banks wrote the mortgages and held them, they were less likely to give money to unqualified buyers. When they were allowed to repackage the debt and sell it to other corporations, to no one's surprise, everyone got greedy and started trading the debt.
I like certain libertarians ideals, but the fact is that regulation is to industry what police are to neighborhoods. If you take a cop off a beat, crime will go up. If you take your eyes off corporate shenanigans, they will go up. This has been obvious from the days of Enron. What we need is reasonable regulation with national standards, state enforcement, and some new laws against the revolving door between business and government. There should be a separation of business and state, for the sake of both.
Of course, you can always argue that the fact that there was regulation that was removed led to the crisis. But you'd be wrong.
Parent
Re:Deregulation caused the crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Deregulation caused the crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you can always argue that the fact that there was regulation that was removed led to the crisis. But you'd be wrong.
Or you could argue that the problem is the return of regulation just in time to socialize the losses. The money that was lost due to piss-poor loan underwriting ought to come from those who took the risk of investing in piss-poor underwriting.
Instead, just in the nick of time, our tax dollars jump in to save the day for the people who unwisely chose to invest in piss-poor underwriting.
This whole idea of "too large to let fail" is the unholy love-child of pro-business 'conservatives' and pro-command-and-control 'liberals.' Its like they took the worst characteristics of each group and decide that those were the ideals by which to run our current government.
Parent
Re:Deregulation caused the crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem was not that we bailed them out, but that we bailed BOTH of them out.
It would have been an object lesson had the feds let one of the two fail completely, with all of the reprecussions, and saved the other.
Instead of letting people see how bad it could have gotten, and let the unlucky lenders who couldn't get their repackaged debt bought by the surviving company fail, we're going to have a long and painful slide as everyone waits for the next shoe to drop.
There will be more banking failures, but my fear is by then there won't be any free capital left in the US to reinvest and reinvigorate when the whole process winds up - we'll have used it all up waiting, just like the Japanese did after their banking/real estate disaster in the early 90's.
I'm wondering how much of this is due to people not wanting to face up to the fact that they're holding on to worthless paper (much as the Japanese refused to let companies go bankrupt), and how much of this is due to recent changes in the bankruptcy code, pushed forward, ironically, by the finance companies...
Parent
Re:Deregulation caused the crisis. (Score:4, Insightful)
And then the idiots who took out loans they couldn't afford file for bankruptcy, and the banks that stupidly lent them that money go out of business. That is not a problem -- it's the market fixing itself.
All these bailouts do is screw over me, as both a taxpayer and a person who otherwise* would be able to afford to buy a house!
(*I'm a college student, so I would actually be a good candidate for one of these ARMs: by the time it adjusted, I'd have graduated and be making enough money to pay for it. But nooo -- first there was the housing bubble and everything was way too expensive, and now that the market has corrected all the loans have dried up -- the irresponsible dumbasses ruined it for everybody else!)
Parent
Re:So let's stop faffing around (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Insightful)
With Putin doing his best Stalin imitation lately, it's moronic to trust the Russians to be a reliable stopgap until our new rockets and spacecraft are ready. We need to simply accept the fact that we'll be needing the Shuttle for a little while longer, and budget appropriately.
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be akin to pumping money into the Wright Brothers in the hopes of getting the 747 faster. The problem isn't that SpaceX lacks cash, the problem is that they aren't anywhere near a booster to replace the Soyuz let alone a capsule to replace the Soyuz. (Yes, the Russians call the booster 'Soyuz' and the capsule 'Soyuz'.)
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, the Russians call the booster 'Soyuz' and the capsule 'Soyuz'.
Soyuz say.
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:4, Interesting)
You can not realistically budget the fact that alot the people that made parts for the space shuttle have already changed jobs because of a mandated stop in orders. Any company that exclusivly worked building components itself either retooled the machines, sold them off or more unlikely left them taking up costly space in storage.
You would need to wave one hell of a magical wand to reverse changing your mind at this point. Its along the lines of saying to 'Just use the same rockets.' to get to space and to the moon that were used previously before the space shuttle.
Except the capacity to do that was also mandated to end in order to bring online shuttle. Deja vu.
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that Russia over-reacted to the Georgian problem, but its not a black-and-white situation there. It was not a blatant land-grab as some paint it.
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, what Russia did is small potatoes compared to what America's foreign policy has been for quite some time. They have attacked a country without provocation and have been occupying it for the past 5 years.
I think if the US set the example returning to a non-interventionist foreign policy and eliminating all barriers to trade it would export democracy and freedom much more effectively than the armed forces and the CIA ever did.
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Interesting)
We're talking about the ISS not ICBMs, please refrain from randomly changing the subject unless your desire is to amuse me with your incompetence. You know that floating pierce of crap that was mainly created to let multiple nations work together and has been heavily outsourced to Russia already?
The ISS was by design a joint project and otherwise idiotic design decisions were made for that reason. The Russians have provided support not only as part of the normal design but also during times when the shuttle fleet was grounded. The Russians also own part of the station and will own even more of it once it's finished (the European and Japanese likewise own other parts of the station).
If they US didn't want to outsource the ISS then they shouldn't have made it a joint project.
Parent
Re:And he's absolutely right (Score:5, Funny)
It's called the *International* Space Station for a reason.
Besides, would we really want to call it the ASS?
Parent
Sabotage! (Score:4, Insightful)
I would imagine he's covering scenarios. But I'm sure someone will manage to read something sinister in to it.
Gotta wonder what affect the election will have? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a serious question since McCain has already said the Russians should be thrown out of the G8 Summit. How likely is he going to be to continue cooperating with the Russians or how happy are they going to be dealing with some one that speaks openly against them? The Cold War is coming back at a very bad time for the ISS.
Premature my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's YOUR ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, you don't throw away the only tool you have, even if it is expensive and unwieldly. Granted, we should have had a replacement for the shuttle a long time ago. But we don't, so that means we fly the shuttle until we do!!!
Parent
Stephen Metschan said it best (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1188/1 [thespacereview.com]
Time is short. Senior NASA management is committed to beginning the destruction of the tooling used to construct the Space Shuttle's External Tank as early as next month. This destruction is completely unnecessary to support the current Ares 1 production plan because the floor space NASA plans to use is not occupied by the External Tank tooling. The only apparent objective of beginning the destruction of this $12-billion national asset next month, used by both the Space Shuttle and Jupiter Launch System, is to maliciously eliminate any competition to the current plan. In an attempt to put a halt to this unnecessary destruction of government property, the Senate version of 2009 NASA authorization bill sought to make this imminent action of the NASA administrator explicitly illegal. Specifically, the Senate provision directed the NASA administrator "to terminate or suspend any activity of the Agency that, if continued, would preclude the continued safe and effective flight of the Space Shuttle Orbiter after fiscal year 2010." Unfortunately, this provision, that cost us nothing to include yet wisely keeps our options open, was removed from the Senate-House conference bill just before the summer recess.
VentureStar (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone else still remember all the videos shown on Discovery Channel and the like on the Lockheed Martin "VentureStar"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 [wikipedia.org]
I know they had some technological problems, but somehow I've always had the feeling that the project was canceled /way/ too soon!
I especially like the idea of the Aerospike engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine [wikipedia.org]
But the moment they canceled that project, it was for me a given that they would run into problems with the Shuttle in the years 2010-2015-2020.
Lack of persistence, vision and looking ahead IMHO.
Engineering (Score:5, Informative)
I'll take Griffin's assertions of context at face value and assume he thinks it's the right thing to replace the STS with Constellation.
He did, however, say the retirement of the STS was not based on engineering. I can see why he might say that.
The most incredible thing about the STS is the main engine, both incredibly amazing and incredibly problematic. The development of those machines as been long and winding. Here [enginehistory.org] is a nice summary of the problems they had just up to first flight.
The thing is, work on improving those engines has continued non-stop since 1972, and finally their performance and reliability is in the ballpark of where is was originally spec'd to be.
Mainly due to new fuel [spaceref.com] and oxidizer [spaceref.com] turbopumps.
And now they throw it all away. I just don't get it. It's too Arrow-esque for me.
Why not re-do the STS instead of re-doing Apollo?
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's like defending free speech and having to stick up for Nazis and pedophiles. It's still a worthy cause in the abstract, but the specifics can take some of the wind out of your sails.
It shouldn't. Nobody wants to censor talk about mom and apple pie. The right of free speech only matters when it comes down to speech that somebody finds offensive. If you aren't willing to defend the freedom to speak about stuff you find offensive, then you didn't ever really believe in free speech to begin with.
Parent
Uhh... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't.
Why shouldn't it?
Nobody wants to censor talk about mom and apple pie. The right of free speech only matters when it comes down to speech that somebody finds offensive.
Right.
If you aren't willing to defend the freedom to speak about stuff you find offensive, then you didn't ever really believe in free speech to begin with.
Bullshit. Freedom of expression is just one universal human right, and like anything, when it its in competition with other universal rights a balance is struck that effectively curtails it.
The right to free expression conflicts with the right to be free from harm. If your expression is causing harm then perhaps your expression should be curtailed.
The fact that most people accept a limit to free speech doesn't mean they "don't really believe in it", rather it means that they aren't single minded idiots that can't hold two thoughts inside their head at the same time. It means they can see the conflict between the ideal of free expression and the ideal of avoiding harm and have struck a personal balance, such that the imperative of protecting free speech becomes progressively weaker as we become increasingly in conflict with the principle of avoiding harm.
In other words, at some stage up around advocating the raping of children most normal people find that DESPITE believing in free speech, they are uncomfortable with the harm they perceive it to be causing, particularly when they perceive that its PURPOSE is to cause harm and has no value beyond that, and perhaps they even perceive that they are being MANIPULATED into providing protection for that harm by the perpetrator... why should we be critical that their resolve to protect that instance of speech has significantly been diminished, perhaps even to the point that they elect to curtail it?
This is the action of a sane and rational person.
Parent
allowing speech is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Myself, I always default to believing that speech should be free unless it's completely clear that the damage caused by the speech cannot be counteracted with more free speech.
On a related note, I wish that no one was allowed to say anything on TV without first taking a legal oath that what they say is true under penalty of perjury. (And they would further be prevented from adding "I think" or any other prevarications to their talk.) The Republican party would essentially be barred from advertising in any way.
Nevertheless, would I ever want to disallow their hateful damaging lies by actually passing a law that made it illegal for them to spew their economy and world damaging nonsense?
No. And honestly, it's a LOT harder for me to say that than it is for me to stick up for neo nazis or other hate groups. That's because, unlike neo nazis, the Republicans are actually successful with their hate speech. Seriously, they actually have people convinced they are a party of small government. (biggest lie ever)
But, I still want it all protected.
Parent
Re:allowing speech is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
No. And honestly, it's a LOT harder for me to say that than it is for me to stick up for neo nazis or other hate groups. That's because, unlike neo nazis, the Republicans are actually successful with their hate speech. Seriously, they actually have people convinced they are a party of small government. (biggest lie ever)
You know, I keep hearing that Republicans make up the party of hatred, and then I see all the hate being spewed toward Bush, McCain, and now especially Palin. I think a look into the mirror is needed here.
On the other off-topic topic of free speech, no one seemed bothered that a bunch of "women" in pink tried to prevent McCain from using his free speech rights. I'm reminded of the Code Pink groups of the 1930's. Only instead of Pink, they wore BROWNSHIRTS.
Forgive the OT-ness.
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your expression is causing harm then perhaps your expression should be curtailed.
But who gets to choose this? I think Madonna should be able to screw around with a crucifix on stage. If you are offended by this, join the club. If you think it "interferes with your natural rights", then you are way, way, too delicate.
Sorry, but unless someone is put in some kind of actual and direct danger, I don't support other people deciding what is and isn't acceptable speech... "Fire in a crowded theater" being the classic example.
In the example of advocating the raping of children... does anyone actually advocate this? I think you chose an example with a "think of the children" element so that people wouldn't disagree. That aside, what about a website advocating lowering the legal age of consent to, say, 17? How about 14? How about 9? Too young? Too old? Are you going to throw the book at the guy running the 9-year-old site but not the 14-year-old site? Why? Because you think one is "rape" but not the other? Who gets to decide? What about other cultures with different ages of consent? Are they rapists?
Conversely, let's say I put up a website advocating raising the age of consent to 21. Here I have a website intent on stripping millions of their legal rights... Isn't that harmful?
See the slippery slope?
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to free expression conflicts with the right to be free from harm. If your expression is causing harm then perhaps your expression should be curtailed.
No it does not, and to claim otherwise is to make a false analogy, just watch as you do it:
In other words, at some stage up around advocating the raping of children
You should rape children. GO! Do it now! You will really like it!
Harm is not caused by speech. Harm is caused by physical action. People like you who falsely claim to believe in freedom of expression are just conflating the two because, like all censorship, it is easier to identify and squelch speech about harmful actions than it is to identify and stop individuals who actually commit those actions and cause actual harm. You get the warm fuzzy of appearing to do something about a problem with high emotional content without all the cost of actually making a real difference.
By the way, bonus points for using "But think of the children!" as your example. I can't think of another meme that has been so widely abused to justify censorship [ala.org] with such little actual reduction in harm.
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Err... Are you completely ignoring emotional harm
"Emotional harm" is not a sufficient justification to infringe on free speech. Grow a spine and realize that your "right" not to be offended doesn't trump my right to speak my mind. If you don't like what I'm saying then start shouting an opposing point of view or walk away. Don't whine about "emotional harm" and try to censor me.
and mental health
If your mental health is so unstable that you can't handle listening to free speech then you probably shouldn't be leaving your house. What was that old adage about sticks and stones?
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd suggest that you spend a few days walking around calling every woman you see "cum dumpster" (to her face) including your time at work
If I did that at work I'd be fired. Free speech != freedom from the consequences of that speech. Saying it elsewhere would probably get me slapped -- which I suppose would technically be assault but I'd deserve it (again, free speech != freedom from the consequences)
Do you actually think it should be illegal to walk up to a woman and call her a cum dumpster?
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody wants to censor talk about mom and apple pie.
I'm allergic to apples, you insensitive clod!
I'd rather no-one mentioned those unfortunate fruits.
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a statement issued after the Orlando Sentinel posted Griffin's e-mail, the space agency administrator stressed that the memo alone lacked the appropriate context.
"The leaked internal email fails to provide the contextual framework for my remarks, and my support for the Administration's policies," Griffin said the NASA statement. "Administration policy is to retire the shuttle in 2010 and purchase crew transport from Russia until Ares and Orion are available."
This basically validates the accuracy of the article's source material (the email), although it does insist that relying on the information in the email alone would not respect the context it was written in. In short, you should have RTFA (which contains a lot more information than the original email), and your comment is idiotic and baseless.
Parent
Re:My problem with the article (Score:5, Informative)
You heard wrong. First of all, a 12 megapixel camera has trouble picking up fingerprints here on earth, unless the surface and lighting are conducive. Second, with a 1-meter aperture, the THEORETICAL limit for resolution would be picking up something 6 inches in diameter. With a 2.4 meter aperture (about the limit for optics going into space. It's the size of the Hubble, in case you were wondering), the (again, theoretical) limit of resolution that could be achieved is 3 inches in diameter.
Both of those numbers are, again, entirely theoretical. That's assuming you weren't looking through ~70 miles of turbulent, dusty atmosphere.
So unless the US Government beat the laws of electromagnetic diffraction and didn't tell anybody...
Parent
Re:My problem with the article (Score:4, Insightful)
I was very young but I think the thing went like this: Flight. Study of safer flight. Assessment of safety of various methods of flight. Cost assessments of various safe methods of flight. WAR. What were we talking about again? Oh, yeah. Civil rights. Drug war. Popular topics. TV. Moonwalk denial "reality TV". American Idol.
So who do you think will win the American Idol challenge this year?
Parent
Re:Safer? (Score:4, Interesting)
I strongly disagree with the sentiment that a reusable vehicle capable of spaceflight is something impossible to design.
I would agree, however, that the Shuttle should have been kept as a prototype and have gone through several more revisions since its original development. Furthermore, relying upon only a single vehicle type was a massive mistake for NASA and should never have happened... at least beyond the initial deployment of the Columbia and perhaps the Challenger.
Vehicles like the DC-X, Dynasoar, and a whole bunch of other failed NASA designs... many of which never even made it beyond a paper study, even though some of them had actual hardware built as well.... should have either received more political support or at least should have been deployed between the early 1980's and today. Unfortunately, the last manned spacecraft design to make it into space that came from a NASA engineer/designer was the Space Shuttle... and that was originally drawn up in the 1960's by Von Braun's shop in Huntsville even though Von Braun wasn't directly responsible for it. At least they were real rocket scientists who had flown actual hardware before they made that design.
Parent
Re:Safer? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. That's an unreserved YES!
Me too, unless the uniform included a red shirt. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:We are LESS capable than we were. (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realise that the US is still the world's biggest manufacturer? China may make all the simple cheap plastic shit, but you really underestimate how many high-tech planes, automobiles and weapons are manufactured in the US. I don't see China making dreamliners or F22s.
Parent
Re:Source of leak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the parties maligned actually deny the claims made by those sources.
This is a double edged sword. On the one hand, anonymous sources can help uncover serious abuses, i.e. Watergate. On the other, journalists can and do simply make stuff up and attribute it to these "sources". I recall the case of one American journalist, whose name(ironically) escapes me at the moment, who was caught extorting his victim. He was essentially threatening to publish stories that while they would be damaging to the victim, would not create any legal "liability" for his publication. I'm sure anonymous sources are abused in this way.
Personally, I think that given the low standing of journalism as a profession, anonymous sources are at this time completely without credibility. Nowadays, the default assumption that must be made about any journalist and news story is that they are a spin doctor spinning a story the way their employer pays them to. Under such high G-forces, the delicate anonymous sources collapse under their own weight.
Parent
No. If it did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous sources must not only be paid attention to, they must be protected in a Democratic society. Thus the laws protecting whistle blowers, and so on.
Parent