3 ms·

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

by tehwebguy 9y ago

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]
    - pasbesoin 9y ago
      In this case, there is no need for such risk taking. As I understand it, the journalists have been supplied with copies of the specific document(s). They can then ask the relevant administration whether the document is genuine. If the adminsitration does not deny the legitimacy of the document, there's your proof. (These are not classified documents. There's no "we can't respond" cover for them, in this case.) This is also a common journalistic practice. I'd also expect them to pursue multiple sourcing for the story. Although, with the document(s) at hand, and the course I described possible, that's not strictly necessary. P.S. I'll add that, more broadly, document sharing is not without risk. The government as well as private entities have taken to distributing "marked" documents that can be tracked back to original recipients. Not in all nor anything like the majority of cases. Just some specific ones. That marking can be overt, or covert. The latter case can include slight variations in content that, particularly if someone has only one exemplar, can be difficult to detect and at best only suspected. Anyway... speaking VERY generally, a central if sometimes unspoken role of ANY organization is mitigating risk to its participants. I would not expect anything different from journalism. I would not expect people to take on unnecessary risk. When people name themselves in such circumstances, it's to accomplish something additional. That doesn't seem to be needed, here. I don't see much reasoned doubt of the story, and I've yet to see a denial from "the government". Ok, too much caffeine, here. Sorry for my runaway keyboard. P.P.S. I can't yet reply to your reply, but I wanted to say, "fair enough". With the caveat I already added, above -- apparently, while you were replying -- that original documents sometimes have to be presented in an information-retaining representation, where overt or covert marking may betray the source. (For example, the woman in Georgia who landed in jail... this past year or so. Win-something or other? The press didn't screen the documents she provided, and they were readily traced back to her. Then apparently corroborated by FBI using system access logs. Apparently, because at the time I last read about it, methodologies were not being confirmed.)
      - mcculley 9y ago
        I didn't see a document. I would love to see one. I want to see the administration held accountable.
mwilliaams 9y ago
Presumably...

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]
  - pasbesoin 9y ago
    In this case, there is no need for such risk taking. As I understand it, the journalists have been supplied with copies of the specific document(s). They can then ask the relevant administration whether the document is genuine. If the adminsitration does not deny the legitimacy of the document, there's your proof. (These are not classified documents. There's no "we can't respond" cover for them, in this case.) This is also a common journalistic practice. I'd also expect them to pursue multiple sourcing for the story. Although, with the document(s) at hand, and the course I described possible, that's not strictly necessary. P.S. I'll add that, more broadly, document sharing is not without risk. The government as well as private entities have taken to distributing "marked" documents that can be tracked back to original recipients. Not in all nor anything like the majority of cases. Just some specific ones. That marking can be overt, or covert. The latter case can include slight variations in content that, particularly if someone has only one exemplar, can be difficult to detect and at best only suspected. Anyway... speaking VERY generally, a central if sometimes unspoken role of ANY organization is mitigating risk to its participants. I would not expect anything different from journalism. I would not expect people to take on unnecessary risk. When people name themselves in such circumstances, it's to accomplish something additional. That doesn't seem to be needed, here. I don't see much reasoned doubt of the story, and I've yet to see a denial from "the government". Ok, too much caffeine, here. Sorry for my runaway keyboard. P.P.S. I can't yet reply to your reply, but I wanted to say, "fair enough". With the caveat I already added, above -- apparently, while you were replying -- that original documents sometimes have to be presented in an information-retaining representation, where overt or covert marking may betray the source. (For example, the woman in Georgia who landed in jail... this past year or so. Win-something or other? The press didn't screen the documents she provided, and they were readily traced back to her. Then apparently corroborated by FBI using system access logs. Apparently, because at the time I last read about it, methodologies were not being confirmed.)
    - mcculley 9y ago
      I didn't see a document. I would love to see one. I want to see the administration held accountable.

mwilliaams 9y ago

Presumably...