3 ms·

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing? No, there isn't. But people really misunderstand how journalists deal with sou

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing? No, there isn't. But people really misunderstand how journalists deal with sources. Here's a recent compilation of behind-the-scenes stories from journalists, that also happens to better communicate the actual work they do than I've seen before: https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/scoops-fahrenthold-greg-howard.php https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/scoops-fahrenthold-greg... In short, an "anonymous source" isn't just a reporter making something up. On the rare occasion that something like that happened, it became a major story in itself. It's also rare for these sources to lie. These sources are real people, after all. And a lie would burn their relationship with the journalist and medium, and possibly beyond. For a politician, that could be a career-ending move. Just to illustrate: we're reading new insider stories from the white house almost every day now. I can point to any number of anonymously-sourced stories that were later proven right by official announcements. There may be some that can't (yet) be judged, such as the persistence rumours that X or Y may resign. But the only story that was provably wrong was the Scaramucci-Malta story by CNN.

moduspol 9y ago
> But the only story that was provably wrong was the Scaramucci-Malta story by CNN. There were at least a few others [1]. And those don't include the legitimizing of the Steele Dossier, which was a few levels separated from an "anonymously-sourced story," but hardly the paragon of journalistic standards. And that doesn't take into account Comey's testimony, where he claimed that often the people talking about these things to reporters don't know what's going on [2]. I think people concerned with journalistic standards since the election aren't totally off-base. [1] https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/12/what-a-breathless-media-got-wrong-about-trump-comey-and-russia-this-week https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/12/what-a-breathless-med... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6g53av/james_comey_testimony_megathread/dio68yc/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6g53av/jam...
smsm42 9y ago
> In short, an "anonymous source" isn't just a reporter making something up. Is there really any difference who made it up if at the end the story came out false? If you look well enough, it's not hard to find people willing to say what you want to hear, and lying by proxy is not much better than lying outright. > It's also rare for these sources to lie. These sources are real people, after all. Implying real people do not lie? They do, all the time. Even more often, they are misinformed, mistaken, confuse their wishes for real fact, exaggerate their knowledge, etc. > I can point to any number of anonymously-sourced stories that were later proven right by official announcements. I can also point to any number that were proven false. E.g. CNN reporting Comey expected to refute Trumps words about not investigating him, and Comey confirming Trumps words. Or the same Comey calling NYT reporting "almost completely wrong" (I guess they got Trump's name correctly?) Not to mention that hilarious Fusion GPS "dossier". There's a ton of this stuff around, all the time. It's a free market - if there's demand, there's supply, and man, is there the demand. > There may be some that can't (yet) be judged, such as the persistence rumours that X or Y may resign That's a nice one because eventually everybody resigns (or gets fired, but that is usually also framed as "resigned", see Spicer), or dies. Since the former case is much more frequent, one can always bet on the rumor that X or Y may resign - eventually it will become true. It's just not true yet...

moduspol 9y ago

> But the only story that was provably wrong was the Scaramucci-Malta story by CNN. There were at least a few others [1]. And those don't include the legitimizing of the Steele Dossier, which was a few levels separated from an "anonymously-sourced story," but hardly the paragon of journalistic standards. And that doesn't take into account Comey's testimony, where he claimed that often the people talking about these things to reporters don't know what's going on [2]. I think people concerned with journalistic standards since the election aren't totally off-base. [1] https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/12/what-a-breathless-media-got-wrong-about-trump-comey-and-russia-this-week https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/12/what-a-breathless-med... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6g53av/james_comey_testimony_megathread/dio68yc/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6g53av/jam...

smsm42 9y ago

> In short, an "anonymous source" isn't just a reporter making something up. Is there really any difference who made it up if at the end the story came out false? If you look well enough, it's not hard to find people willing to say what you want to hear, and lying by proxy is not much better than lying outright. > It's also rare for these sources to lie. These sources are real people, after all. Implying real people do not lie? They do, all the time. Even more often, they are misinformed, mistaken, confuse their wishes for real fact, exaggerate their knowledge, etc. > I can point to any number of anonymously-sourced stories that were later proven right by official announcements. I can also point to any number that were proven false. E.g. CNN reporting Comey expected to refute Trumps words about not investigating him, and Comey confirming Trumps words. Or the same Comey calling NYT reporting "almost completely wrong" (I guess they got Trump's name correctly?) Not to mention that hilarious Fusion GPS "dossier". There's a ton of this stuff around, all the time. It's a free market - if there's demand, there's supply, and man, is there the demand. > There may be some that can't (yet) be judged, such as the persistence rumours that X or Y may resign That's a nice one because eventually everybody resigns (or gets fired, but that is usually also framed as "resigned", see Spicer), or dies. Since the former case is much more frequent, one can always bet on the rumor that X or Y may resign - eventually it will become true. It's just not true yet...