[quo ie author=davep link=topic=96.msg205254#msg205254 date=1419202763]
There is no legal or fiduciary in this situation, but there certainly was a moral duty. The news networks were trafficking in stolen property, which they knew at the time was stolen. This was not leaks about our government, which could be construed to be in the public interest to make known, but strictly private property that was none of the public's business. But media failing in their ethical duties is hardly news, and is in itself none of the Government's business. Doesn't change the fact that the media was acting in an unethical manner.
[/quote]
Trafficking in stolen property?
Really?
If so, in the case of websites, TV stations or radio, to whom did they sell it?
Traffinking in stolen property is an incredible stretch. They paid no one for it, and sold it to no one. If THAT were to be considered "trafficking in stolen property," then any virtuall time the news media obtains any confidential information and discloses it, without the consent of all involved, they would be trafficking in stolen property. That interpretation would pretty much eliminate news.
You consider the news media to have been acting in an unethical manner. You would be very hard pressed to find anyone in news, anyone who actually addresses such issues on a regular basis and thinks about them, who would agree with you.