4 ms·

I've read articles now on three news sites about this. All of them cite "CDC analysts" but provide no names or credible sources. If these analysts are upset, wh

I've read articles now on three news sites about this. All of them cite "CDC analysts" but provide no names or credible sources. If these analysts are upset, why aren't they providing their names? Why do newspapers allow these anonymous sources?

prepend 9y ago
This makes the article much less potent. Without knowing the analysts and being able to confirm it, it’s just a case of he said, she said. HHS has a statement that says this didn’t happen. It seems like the journalist should have worked to get a recording or at least multiple sources.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  As a rule journalists do not make stuff up. And the few exceptions to that rule, if and when found out are dealt with rather harshly. Wish that we would hold politicians to the same standards.
  - mcculley 9y ago
    I'm not suggesting that journalists made something up. I would like to see a list of banned words presented to CDC staff. It's not clear to me how serious this is. Is it an exaggeration? A miscommunication? We are not talking about Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. It's hard to tell if this is gossip. Anybody taking ownership of the claim could clear that up.
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      Exfiltrating a hard copy/digital copy proves to be a very traceable source for a leak.
      - prepend 9y ago
        This is a good point, but it’s what makes journalism hard. Fortunately, there are many ways to get hard copy / digital copy without traceability (eg, Wikileaks but not Reality Winner).
      - mcculley 9y ago
        So? If I were a CDC employee and I were fired for publishing policy, I would be proud of that. I'm sure many lawyers would love to represent such a person.
  - prepend 9y ago
    That’s a good point and I don’t think the journalist is making it up, although there have been quite a few cases of journalists being wrong or outright lying (eg, Dan Rather). I think the bigger risk is that the source is wrong. Being able to confirm with multiple sources isn’t just about proving yourself as a journalist, but about verifying the story. I look forward to the follow up stories to confirm or deny what this is about. Like I said, HHS already has statements saying “that didn’t happen like that” so it’s an issue of HHS credibility vs. New York Times. Having better sources would remove this question.
  - mwilliaams 9y ago
    That really only applies if you have a narrow view of which writers are journalists. Lots of people make stuff up.
tehwebguy 9y ago
They aren’t anonymous to the newspaper, the newspaper is protecting them.
- mcculley 9y ago
  I understand that. What I don't understand is why. Without naming names, this is just gossip, not journalism.
  - pasbesoin 9y ago
    Because these people are career government employees. If they are specifically named, under this administration their career is likely ended. And unlike the tech industry, people in these positions don't job-hop constantly. They want the public to know about this [I can think of many unfavorable adjectives] behavior. But they don't want to lose their careers, put their families at economic risk, etc. Acting as (responsible) intermediary in such circumstances is a time-honored and proven role of journalism, in the U.S. and other countries. P.S. I'll add that the U.S. scientific community had a good, close look at such behavior as a preview, in the neighboring country of Canada under the Harper government. To the point where they were collaborating with Canadian scientists to back up data before the Harper government erased it. They are not merely reacting emotionally. They've seen Conservatives' (on either side of the border) play book for this for nigh on a decade, at least.
    - mcculley 9y ago
      I agree that journalists protecting sources is important for some matters (e.g., Watergate, the Pentagon Papers). I think the allowance of anonymous sources has swung too far in the other direction, allowing for gossip as news. Journalists need to hold their sources to a higher standard and make clear that they must accept some risk.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - 9y ago
jonny_eh 9y ago
Because they fear retaliation?
- mcculley 9y ago
  I can understand a hypothetical analyst being eager to complain to the press yet scared to jeopardize an "analyst" job, whatever that is. What I don't understand is why, in the age of "fake news", journalists are not being more diligent about credibility of sources. This sloppiness empowers the exact thing they claim to be against. The only purpose I can imagine is to foment social media outrage and drive clicks and advertisement impressions.
  - mikebenfield 9y ago
    What evidence do you have that they have been sloppy or not diligent with regard to their sources here? The fact that the sources are anonymous is certainly not such evidence; anonymous sources have been considered crucial to journalism for a very long time.
    - mcculley 9y ago
      I agree that anonymity is important for things like Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. Allowing anonymity for anything less just promotes gossip.
  - adamson 9y ago
    Letting sources be anonymous doesn't preclude you from being diligent about the veracity of your sources' claims. The sources aren't anonymous to the journalist.
  - leetcrew 9y ago
    > The only purpose I can imagine is to foment social media outrage and drive clicks and advertisement impressions. economics drives everything. we need a different incentive structure for news, and the readers are probably the only ones that can effect change.
mcculley 9y ago
I'm amused by the overall reaction and the downvotes. My perception of the general ethos of Hacker News that we should be able to get to original sources without gatekeepers. Such disintermediation is exemplified by e.g., arXiv, but when it comes to news, journalists are given a pass on what might be gossip.

prepend 9y ago

This makes the article much less potent. Without knowing the analysts and being able to confirm it, it’s just a case of he said, she said. HHS has a statement that says this didn’t happen. It seems like the journalist should have worked to get a recording or at least multiple sources.

jacquesm 9y ago
As a rule journalists do not make stuff up. And the few exceptions to that rule, if and when found out are dealt with rather harshly. Wish that we would hold politicians to the same standards.
- mcculley 9y ago
  I'm not suggesting that journalists made something up. I would like to see a list of banned words presented to CDC staff. It's not clear to me how serious this is. Is it an exaggeration? A miscommunication? We are not talking about Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. It's hard to tell if this is gossip. Anybody taking ownership of the claim could clear that up.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    Exfiltrating a hard copy/digital copy proves to be a very traceable source for a leak.
    - prepend 9y ago
      This is a good point, but it’s what makes journalism hard. Fortunately, there are many ways to get hard copy / digital copy without traceability (eg, Wikileaks but not Reality Winner).
    - mcculley 9y ago
      So? If I were a CDC employee and I were fired for publishing policy, I would be proud of that. I'm sure many lawyers would love to represent such a person.
- prepend 9y ago
  That’s a good point and I don’t think the journalist is making it up, although there have been quite a few cases of journalists being wrong or outright lying (eg, Dan Rather). I think the bigger risk is that the source is wrong. Being able to confirm with multiple sources isn’t just about proving yourself as a journalist, but about verifying the story. I look forward to the follow up stories to confirm or deny what this is about. Like I said, HHS already has statements saying “that didn’t happen like that” so it’s an issue of HHS credibility vs. New York Times. Having better sources would remove this question.
- mwilliaams 9y ago
  That really only applies if you have a narrow view of which writers are journalists. Lots of people make stuff up.

tehwebguy 9y ago

They aren’t anonymous to the newspaper, the newspaper is protecting them.

mcculley 9y ago
I understand that. What I don't understand is why. Without naming names, this is just gossip, not journalism.
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  Because these people are career government employees. If they are specifically named, under this administration their career is likely ended. And unlike the tech industry, people in these positions don't job-hop constantly. They want the public to know about this [I can think of many unfavorable adjectives] behavior. But they don't want to lose their careers, put their families at economic risk, etc. Acting as (responsible) intermediary in such circumstances is a time-honored and proven role of journalism, in the U.S. and other countries. P.S. I'll add that the U.S. scientific community had a good, close look at such behavior as a preview, in the neighboring country of Canada under the Harper government. To the point where they were collaborating with Canadian scientists to back up data before the Harper government erased it. They are not merely reacting emotionally. They've seen Conservatives' (on either side of the border) play book for this for nigh on a decade, at least.
  - mcculley 9y ago
    I agree that journalists protecting sources is important for some matters (e.g., Watergate, the Pentagon Papers). I think the allowance of anonymous sources has swung too far in the other direction, allowing for gossip as news. Journalists need to hold their sources to a higher standard and make clear that they must accept some risk.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - 9y ago

jonny_eh 9y ago

Because they fear retaliation?

mcculley 9y ago
I can understand a hypothetical analyst being eager to complain to the press yet scared to jeopardize an "analyst" job, whatever that is. What I don't understand is why, in the age of "fake news", journalists are not being more diligent about credibility of sources. This sloppiness empowers the exact thing they claim to be against. The only purpose I can imagine is to foment social media outrage and drive clicks and advertisement impressions.
- mikebenfield 9y ago
  What evidence do you have that they have been sloppy or not diligent with regard to their sources here? The fact that the sources are anonymous is certainly not such evidence; anonymous sources have been considered crucial to journalism for a very long time.
  - mcculley 9y ago
    I agree that anonymity is important for things like Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. Allowing anonymity for anything less just promotes gossip.
- adamson 9y ago
  Letting sources be anonymous doesn't preclude you from being diligent about the veracity of your sources' claims. The sources aren't anonymous to the journalist.
- leetcrew 9y ago
  > The only purpose I can imagine is to foment social media outrage and drive clicks and advertisement impressions. economics drives everything. we need a different incentive structure for news, and the readers are probably the only ones that can effect change.

mcculley 9y ago

I'm amused by the overall reaction and the downvotes. My perception of the general ethos of Hacker News that we should be able to get to original sources without gatekeepers. Such disintermediation is exemplified by e.g., arXiv, but when it comes to news, journalists are given a pass on what might be gossip.