Originally Posted by battiato1981
If they're going to reveal names and all, why spill the name of the guy who flubbed up and not the notorious opportunist who fenced it.
That's the name I want to see in print.
journalism doesn't drop names of their sources. but the guy probably had a deal to not expose him to ensure his privacy which could be up in the air now. if he stole it, and gizmodo knew this, then his name should be exposed as well, but if not, then i dont see why they should...protect your sources..
on the hand, if you're gary powell, would you want your name not exposed and very likely lose your job... or do you want your name exposed hoping the media and public will help save your job? its a no win situation. i just think gizmodo dropped his name to save his job, but do you agree his name would have been exposed anyways?
I would like a poll about what would most likely to happen to Gary P. if he did lose the iphoen and was not stolen:
a) Gizmodo does not drop his name, and GP get's fired, goes down quietly..
b) GP's name was going to be exposed eventually by someone else, but gets fired first with no public/media to help him.
c) Gizmodo, saved his job for the mean time, by dropping his name and hoping the public will put the pressure on Apple to not fire him.
d) GP's name does not get exposed and keeps his job.