4 ms·

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that every time a journalist agrees to any ground rules they have compromised their profession or given the appearance of

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that every time a journalist agrees to any ground rules they have compromised their profession or given the appearance of compromise (which is actually worse than hidden corruption in terms of the effect on public trust). Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. And at that point it's like the cliché about being willing to sleep with someone for millions -- the character has been established and the only thing left is negotiating the price. Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. News orgs live and die by the access they get and if some reporters are willing to prostitute themselves to get it, it puts enormous pressure on the rest. Conditions on reporting should be treated like doping in sports. Edit: there is one area in which my framework needs a clarifying remark. A reporter can always voluntarily refuse to identify a source or otherwise protect it and the source can always use electronic or even snail mail methods to preserve their anonymity. My comments above are not intended to mean that reporters must always report every detail of every interaction, only that agreeing to conditions in advance can compromise their integrity and pervert the role of the press generally. 2nd edit: I'm convinced there are areas where granting anonymity is absolutely essential. My above position was clearly a knee-jerk and not well grounded in reality. Thanks HN.

ForrestN 8y ago
The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda. That’s why reporters usually need multiple sources and other proof to run something important. History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,” which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ballenf 8y ago
  I edited my comment above in anticipation of this truth. You're right and the difficulty with anonymously passing info is that the reporter can't verify the source's integrity very easily (not every source has access to a non-public document or other independent source of identity verification). I still believe these issues can be addressed without a reporter compromising themselves. Maybe one bright line rule everyone could agree to is no conditions on reporting when covering an elected or high-ranking (cabinet level or heads of agencies, etc.) official. Wouldn't even cover their staff -- but anything you see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable in my opinion.
  - dhsbak 8y ago
    It’s admirable to reconsider as you have, but there are some serious inconsistencies in the popular ideas you’re aligning with and you may want to clarify. The difference between whistleblowing and reporting is purely subjective and ultimately undermine the ideals of noble protections for the press that so many love to defend. Until we find consistency here, we are also protecting a privileged class of reporters and should at least consider the ramifications of delegating press responsibilities this way before settling. Why should we be guarding the NYT reporters while at the same time banishing Snowden? In an age of electronic media, our economy of attention is a full capacity. Freedom of expression is a tiny concern compared with power of distributions. Centralization of press responsibilities (separate discussion) make sense but we must confront the realities of the machine this creates when we put so much into protections. Many jobs carry great risk, and people choose them anyhow. Risk acceptance is a classical way of measuring one’s loyalty to the the collective good. It’s the basis for unmitigated respect to a nation’s soldiers. Our current attention economy and the desirability to be a reporter might serve a critical public good. I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people and this sounds like one possible ethical path in that direction. It’s not an easy one, and worthy of debate. But, what we have is a disaster. EDIT: Off the record, I work in the press. I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.
CPLX 8y ago
That’s just nonsense. There are many valid reasons why people might want to stay out of the news but provide information. The archetypal example of Deep Throat, now known to be a top FBI offical, leading reporters towards independently confirming presidential wrongdoing, does not seem to exemplify a compromised reporter at all. There are many other examples. Sure it’s often misused but the core concept has value.
untog 8y ago
> Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. Only if that obliged them to report what the source said uncritically, which it doesn't at all. I mean, I'm not defending the principle, but realistically it's where we are. e.g. the Trump administration has outright said that they will fire anyone leaking information to the press. So the only way to get information about what going on in there is to allow your source to be publicly anonymous. > you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Corruption exists in every industry and journalism is no different. The question for any reader is working out who they trust. The NYT says here that they explicitly ban that practice, and you can either take their word for it or not, I suppose. I don't know how you'd disprove a negative in this context.
throwawaymath 8y ago
I strongly disagree with you. I was interviewed by the WSJ and a few other organizations a few months ago. There are a variety of details I was willing to give to provide greater clarity and context to the situation, but only if those details wouldn't actually be in the article itself. In fact, these weren't even details that would make me look worse - they're details I personally felt would unfairly make other parties look bad if they were read in a newspaper article. But those details were still germane to the setting of the story. Moreover, I didn't really want my name to be in the story either - I'd rather have my research show up on the first page of a search engine rather than a bunch of news articles about me. The reality of human communication and social dynamics is that the same information can be received quite differently based on 1) the medium of delivery, 2) the person receiving the information, 3) the receiving person's prior knowledge, and 4) the amount of time that can be spent putting the information into a charitable or uncharitable context. Sometimes it is legitimately useful for a reporter to have information which can inform the parts of a story they will report on. And of course if I tell a reporter something, I have no creative control on how or if the information will be used and presented in the final piece. Is this sometimes misused? Of course. But it's not intrinsically bad or good, it simply allows both parties to have greater control and flexibility over what is said. If you took away reporters' ability to get details off the record, you would not find yourself in a new journalistic utopia with greater transparency and accountability. You'd simply make it harder for reporters to find leads and information. I do not believe that setting "ground rules" or "agreeing to terms in advance" compromises the journalistic integrity of a reporter. I think reasonable and honest people can believe it's in the best interest of all involved if they can provide context and clarity without those details being widely disseminated. The potential for misuse here does not negate the flexibility of that paradigm when it's used with integrity.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Some of the most important reporting simply wouldn't happen without off-the-record conversations. Without protection for sources, very few people will have the confidence to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without a steady stream of confidential leaks, most political reporters would be completely blind as to the inner workings of government. Without off-the-record reporting, most corporate scandals would never be revealed. https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/thetimes-dailytelegraph https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/the...
maxxxxx 8y ago
Investigative journalism is often in a gray zone. I'd they didn't allow conditions then a lot of sources wouldn't and couldn't talk. A lot of whistleblowers would bee afraid of consequences. In the end it's up to the ethics of the journalist to handle this correctly and make sure that off the record conversations aren't misused.
jessriedel 8y ago
> Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Where does the article say this isn't done? It only says that the journalist isn't bound to retroactively convert comments to be off-the-record at the request of the interviewee. For better or worse, the journalist is always free to selectively report; they are not required to print every statement made on the record.
dalbasal 8y ago
A bad web entrepreneur walks into a courtroom with a gaggle of lawyers in tow. accuser - "..You spied on customers, sold their data, etc. etc. We just made a whole bunch of laws about that. Bad!" accused - "All that is true, but I have this nag screen, those terms and conditions and all sorts of stuff my lawyers assure me makes all that legal. Those laws should really have been written differently." judge - Oh. Well.. off you go then. Violating the spirit of a rule, in a rule-oriented environment, is not a rule violation. It can even be vindicating. In sports, for example, playing to the rules is often considered a show of craft & skill. Law too. I think the same applies here. There are lines that should never be crossed. But, it's better to keep journalistic ethics principle-oriented rather than rule-oriented. Conditions can compromise a journalist and let the subject dictate things, turning press into publicist as you say. It can also enable journalists to investigate more effectively. The balance has to be determined in a principled way. It can't be litigated.
- extralego 8y ago
  This example isn’t cutting it. Aren’t you just scapegoating the criminal justice system? How can this result in anything but a race to the bottom?
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    I don't think it's a race in any direction. There's just a trade-off of sorts between principles and rules. Law works based on rules and so does sports. Not everything is quite that clear-cut, but I think a trade-off is always there. Sometimes one is more appropriate than another.
selljamhere 8y ago
I disagree. The article notes several times that a source requiring broad anonymity should be viewed with skepticism. The implication is that the source my have ulterior motives, and the journalist has a duty to determine the story’s veracity. However, not all sources require anonimity simply to spread disinformation. Some of our most culturally significant news stories have spawned from sources requiring extreme anonimity. In these cases it is up to the journalist to corroborate the information.

ForrestN 8y ago

The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda. That’s why reporters usually need multiple sources and other proof to run something important. History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,” which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ballenf 8y ago
I edited my comment above in anticipation of this truth. You're right and the difficulty with anonymously passing info is that the reporter can't verify the source's integrity very easily (not every source has access to a non-public document or other independent source of identity verification). I still believe these issues can be addressed without a reporter compromising themselves. Maybe one bright line rule everyone could agree to is no conditions on reporting when covering an elected or high-ranking (cabinet level or heads of agencies, etc.) official. Wouldn't even cover their staff -- but anything you see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable in my opinion.
- dhsbak 8y ago
  It’s admirable to reconsider as you have, but there are some serious inconsistencies in the popular ideas you’re aligning with and you may want to clarify. The difference between whistleblowing and reporting is purely subjective and ultimately undermine the ideals of noble protections for the press that so many love to defend. Until we find consistency here, we are also protecting a privileged class of reporters and should at least consider the ramifications of delegating press responsibilities this way before settling. Why should we be guarding the NYT reporters while at the same time banishing Snowden? In an age of electronic media, our economy of attention is a full capacity. Freedom of expression is a tiny concern compared with power of distributions. Centralization of press responsibilities (separate discussion) make sense but we must confront the realities of the machine this creates when we put so much into protections. Many jobs carry great risk, and people choose them anyhow. Risk acceptance is a classical way of measuring one’s loyalty to the the collective good. It’s the basis for unmitigated respect to a nation’s soldiers. Our current attention economy and the desirability to be a reporter might serve a critical public good. I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people and this sounds like one possible ethical path in that direction. It’s not an easy one, and worthy of debate. But, what we have is a disaster. EDIT: Off the record, I work in the press. I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.

CPLX 8y ago

That’s just nonsense. There are many valid reasons why people might want to stay out of the news but provide information. The archetypal example of Deep Throat, now known to be a top FBI offical, leading reporters towards independently confirming presidential wrongdoing, does not seem to exemplify a compromised reporter at all. There are many other examples. Sure it’s often misused but the core concept has value.

untog 8y ago

> Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. Only if that obliged them to report what the source said uncritically, which it doesn't at all. I mean, I'm not defending the principle, but realistically it's where we are. e.g. the Trump administration has outright said that they will fire anyone leaking information to the press. So the only way to get information about what going on in there is to allow your source to be publicly anonymous. > you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Corruption exists in every industry and journalism is no different. The question for any reader is working out who they trust. The NYT says here that they explicitly ban that practice, and you can either take their word for it or not, I suppose. I don't know how you'd disprove a negative in this context.

throwawaymath 8y ago

I strongly disagree with you. I was interviewed by the WSJ and a few other organizations a few months ago. There are a variety of details I was willing to give to provide greater clarity and context to the situation, but only if those details wouldn't actually be in the article itself. In fact, these weren't even details that would make me look worse - they're details I personally felt would unfairly make other parties look bad if they were read in a newspaper article. But those details were still germane to the setting of the story. Moreover, I didn't really want my name to be in the story either - I'd rather have my research show up on the first page of a search engine rather than a bunch of news articles about me. The reality of human communication and social dynamics is that the same information can be received quite differently based on 1) the medium of delivery, 2) the person receiving the information, 3) the receiving person's prior knowledge, and 4) the amount of time that can be spent putting the information into a charitable or uncharitable context. Sometimes it is legitimately useful for a reporter to have information which can inform the parts of a story they will report on. And of course if I tell a reporter something, I have no creative control on how or if the information will be used and presented in the final piece. Is this sometimes misused? Of course. But it's not intrinsically bad or good, it simply allows both parties to have greater control and flexibility over what is said. If you took away reporters' ability to get details off the record, you would not find yourself in a new journalistic utopia with greater transparency and accountability. You'd simply make it harder for reporters to find leads and information. I do not believe that setting "ground rules" or "agreeing to terms in advance" compromises the journalistic integrity of a reporter. I think reasonable and honest people can believe it's in the best interest of all involved if they can provide context and clarity without those details being widely disseminated. The potential for misuse here does not negate the flexibility of that paradigm when it's used with integrity.

jdietrich 8y ago
Some of the most important reporting simply wouldn't happen without off-the-record conversations. Without protection for sources, very few people will have the confidence to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without a steady stream of confidential leaks, most political reporters would be completely blind as to the inner workings of government. Without off-the-record reporting, most corporate scandals would never be revealed. https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/thetimes-dailytelegraph https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/the...

maxxxxx 8y ago

Investigative journalism is often in a gray zone. I'd they didn't allow conditions then a lot of sources wouldn't and couldn't talk. A lot of whistleblowers would bee afraid of consequences. In the end it's up to the ethics of the journalist to handle this correctly and make sure that off the record conversations aren't misused.

jessriedel 8y ago

> Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Where does the article say this isn't done? It only says that the journalist isn't bound to retroactively convert comments to be off-the-record at the request of the interviewee. For better or worse, the journalist is always free to selectively report; they are not required to print every statement made on the record.

dalbasal 8y ago

A bad web entrepreneur walks into a courtroom with a gaggle of lawyers in tow. accuser - "..You spied on customers, sold their data, etc. etc. We just made a whole bunch of laws about that. Bad!" accused - "All that is true, but I have this nag screen, those terms and conditions and all sorts of stuff my lawyers assure me makes all that legal. Those laws should really have been written differently." judge - Oh. Well.. off you go then. Violating the spirit of a rule, in a rule-oriented environment, is not a rule violation. It can even be vindicating. In sports, for example, playing to the rules is often considered a show of craft & skill. Law too. I think the same applies here. There are lines that should never be crossed. But, it's better to keep journalistic ethics principle-oriented rather than rule-oriented. Conditions can compromise a journalist and let the subject dictate things, turning press into publicist as you say. It can also enable journalists to investigate more effectively. The balance has to be determined in a principled way. It can't be litigated.

extralego 8y ago
This example isn’t cutting it. Aren’t you just scapegoating the criminal justice system? How can this result in anything but a race to the bottom?
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I don't think it's a race in any direction. There's just a trade-off of sorts between principles and rules. Law works based on rules and so does sports. Not everything is quite that clear-cut, but I think a trade-off is always there. Sometimes one is more appropriate than another.

selljamhere 8y ago

I disagree. The article notes several times that a source requiring broad anonymity should be viewed with skepticism. The implication is that the source my have ulterior motives, and the journalist has a duty to determine the story’s veracity. However, not all sources require anonimity simply to spread disinformation. Some of our most culturally significant news stories have spawned from sources requiring extreme anonimity. In these cases it is up to the journalist to corroborate the information.