I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. I'm talking about what has worked for the confidential sources I had, and the means they chose to communicate

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. I'm talking about what has worked for the confidential sources I had, and the means they chose to communicate with me, which in fact prevented me or my org from knowing who they were. (They were not up against the intelligence agencies of the US, but nonetheless they did not want to be known, and succeeded.) Investigations usually happen in retrospect, after leaks have been made public. And the data that is most searchable surfaces leads most quickly. Files and emails are the most searchable thing of all. Easy to copy. Stored many times as they travel. That is less true of voice. And even less true of face to face meetings, done right. So sure, use a voice modulator. That's a good idea. Even better: send a paper envelope full of documents printed on someone else's machine; wear latex glove and dab the stamp with tap water rather than saliva. Journalists have a filtering problem that you don't seem to understand. They are inundated with wackos hawking "news" that's really just a figment of the imagination. Partisan sources pretending to be neutral spin them everyday. A good source, with good information, has to realize that and break through to the reporter by demonstrating authenticity, because the reporter is overwhelmed. If you don't care about breaking through, then don't do it. It's not a misunderstanding on the journalists' part; its the nature of their job. They don't have time to wade through all the crazy claims. Everything's hackable. People should assume that reporters and their organizations will have a lapse in security, that they cannot withstand the collective efforts of intelligence agencies. Just like any other company in the world and the DNC... And those sources should arrange to protect themselves if their communications are found by someone who's not the reporter.