News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I think it’s meant to “snuff out” as in “kill” the leaks, not necessarily the perpetrators. Like, we’re gonna do this to end the leaks. The wording is somewhat awkward and questionable, but not necessarily incorrect. Snuff out is used to refer to extinguishing candles, so it’s not unheard of to use it in contexts other than ending human lives.
I see your line of thinking, but let's also remember that polygraphs wouldn't end leaks even if they really were lie detectors. The most they could do in that fictional scenario would be to reveal the leaks; to sniff them out. To snuff them out would require some additional, separate action.
Also snuff out applies to candles only because the snuff is literally part of a candle's wick. The phrase is not being used literally here, which leaves us with the common non-literal meaning: to murder.
I still think the most charitable interpretation is that author confused it with sniff out, and failed to consider the grisly meaning of what they wrote.
If you want to go the linguistic history route, “snuff” literally meant “to sniff at in order to examine” starting in 1810, so it’s technically (the best kind of?) correct to use it in this context, although still awkward in terms of modern colloquialisms.
I'm going as far back as the 1400s, and your 1810 usage doesn't match any common meaning of "snuff out", so I don't think it really applies here. But thanks for the interesting etymological diversion. :)
In any case, polygraphs still cannot put an end to leaks, so I stand by my original interpretation.
And I stand by mine, as “snuff something out” in the modern Cambridge dictionary is “to cause to end suddenly,” and of course that’s what they’re trying to do by using a polygraph as “evidence” (which it’s not going to accomplish, but that doesn’t stop attempted improper usage of the device). Their approach (as in many things) is horribly wrong, but the reporter’s word usage is not improper.