3 ms·

I dislike knee-jerk media criticism on HN (or anywhere), but in this case the story is actually based on one anonymous source, whom the journalist has never met

I dislike knee-jerk media criticism on HN (or anywhere), but in this case the story is actually based on one anonymous source, whom the journalist has never met, and on nothing else. Quality journalists corroborate anonymous tips with multiple sources and documents. The journalist's own description of the evidence: > Just so you know, I spoke with this whistleblower a couple times by phone and he sounds credible. Plus I was able to confirm that he was with the IRS, in the position he says, during the time this was alleged to be happening. Also, the NY Post is partisan conservative (which is fine, but important context), part of Murdoch's News Corp last I knew, and a part of the conservative partisan agenda is to discredit the IRS. All of that doesn't make it wrong, but doesn't make it credible IMHO. I'll wait to hear more. EDIT: A few clarifications

sehugg 8y ago
Not the first time he's done something like this: https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bogus_new_york_post_story_census.php https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bogus_new_york_post_story...
bertil 8y ago
One easy verification (that unsurprisingly, the NYPost skipped) was to either ask the whistle-blower to name an egregious cases, or to check if any member of Congress has had suspicious transactions prior to a merger. It feels like both the list of mergers and members of Congress are small enough for this to be doable.
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
me too. the majority of pple sharing this on twitter are far-right accounts and the language is what you'd expect. nypost hasn't exactly got a reputation for facts & credibility either: >According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism
- jandrese 8y ago
  I was about the comment that a single New York Post article (this is not the Times!) is hardly a credible source. These guys are barely above the National Enquirer for fact checking.

sehugg 8y ago

Not the first time he's done something like this: https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bogus_new_york_post_story_census.php https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bogus_new_york_post_story...

bertil 8y ago

One easy verification (that unsurprisingly, the NYPost skipped) was to either ask the whistle-blower to name an egregious cases, or to check if any member of Congress has had suspicious transactions prior to a merger. It feels like both the list of mergers and members of Congress are small enough for this to be doable.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

me too. the majority of pple sharing this on twitter are far-right accounts and the language is what you'd expect. nypost hasn't exactly got a reputation for facts & credibility either: >According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism

jandrese 8y ago
I was about the comment that a single New York Post article (this is not the Times!) is hardly a credible source. These guys are barely above the National Enquirer for fact checking.