6 ms·

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news ar

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those who provide the information, but at the same time, it ensures honest, and factual information is being published?

code4tee 8y ago
That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.
- qubex 8y ago
  Somebody illustrious and learned once said something to the effect that “if somebody tells you it's raining outside, and somebody else tells you the sun is shining, your job as a journalist isn't to report that some people say one thing whereas others say something else, your job as a journalist is to go look out the window and report what the weather is actually doing”. What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading.
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    I heard another version of this the other day, a great line that's apparently some newspaper's motto: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out first."
    - gowld 8y ago
      There's a great story behind that, of course: https://medium.com/@Susys/lets-change-this-journalism-motto-because-if-your-mother-says-she-loves-you-check-it-out-a953b9a8d96c https://medium.com/@Susys/lets-change-this-journalism-motto-...
  - KZeillmann 8y ago
    If you look at 24 hour cable news, I'm sure that's what you see. It's entertainment passed on as journalism. There's still good journalism going on if you know where to look. The New York Times, the Washington Post, for example, are incredibly informative and useful sources for news.
    - mdex 8y ago
      Neither the NYT or Washington Post questioned the Bush admin and intelligence communities claims about why the USA was going to war with Iraq even though it was public knowledge that the 9/11 attackers were all Saudis and it had nothing to do with 9/11. But the media helped them spin the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism, even though Iraq was not exporting terrorism to the West, not until after they destabilized the region by taking out Saddam. Instead, the NYT wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's WMDs were and how he was supporting terrorism, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. Nowadays they defend themselves by saying "everyone agreed at the time". It's not true. Mainstream media is a rubber stamp for corporate and state interests, just propaganda. They rubber stamped Bush's war's just like they rubber stamped Obamas, they will probably rubber stamp Trump's too. Yes, they also contain true information, but they are still just corporate/state propaganda. If they aren't willing to fact-check the govt for an issue as serious as going to war, especially with all the red-flags that were out there, like the fact that Colin Powell, a year prior to holding up anthrax in congress as "proof" that Iraq had WMDs, was giving speeches a year earlier claiming there was no evidence Saddam was making WMDs. Like the fact the Bush admin certainty about WMD was far greater than the actual intel communities claims. No one fact-checked them.
      - shaki-dora 8y ago
        Your talking point is old enough to have finished high school by now, maybe it’s time to come up with a second example? And, by the way, the NYT fired the reporter and an editor over that mistake, wrote numerous articles on how it happened, and instituted new rules to prevent similar things happening in the future.
  - Loughla 8y ago
    >What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading. And the problem is compounded in that the internet, for all of its glories, has also taught folks that their opinions/beliefs/dogma are just as valuable as actual facts. I don't know what, how, or why. But the only two things different now to, say, the 80's in terms of bullshit journalism is its ability to reach people directly in a 'one-on-one' setting and its ability to be echoed with no challenge in online forums and the like.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Usually good anonymous tips are the sort tell the journalists where to look, who to ask, what questions to ask, etc. Allegations that there's a conspiracy to turn everyone into commies by putting fluoride in the water aren't taken seriously unless they include some way for the journalists to validate the claims (official documentation, for example).
wool_gather 8y ago
Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.
- tertius 8y ago
  So you're saying that no journalist would accept a tip from someone who will not identify themselves?
  - lightbyte 8y ago
    Unless they can verify it some other way, I highly doubt any reputable journalist would publish something like that. When a journalists publishes something based on a source that wishes to stay anonymous they are putting their career and reputation on the line.
  - patmcc 8y ago
    They may 'accept the tip' and then try to verify/track it down with other sources (and say "I've heard X, can you confirm that for me?"), but no, a reputable journalist will never publish a quote from an anonymous source with no verification.
  - jhayward 8y ago
    A tip is just an investigative lead. "Hooker Chemical is dumping massive amounts of toxic waste at Love Canal" would be a tip. It would then be up to an investigative reporter to investigate, and report what the investigation uncovers. You may be thinking of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources". Those people may be quoted on a factual basis, but the reporter has an obligation to obtain the same kind of confirmation of their information as any other investigative lead.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > A tip is just an investigative lead. "Hooker Chemical is dumping massive amounts of toxic waste at Love Canal" would be a tip. Actually, that's not a tip by the NY Times definition: A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip. https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips
jlmorton 8y ago
> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputable newspaper like the New York Times, and although all newspapers are sometimes mislead by their sources, or otherwise get things wrong, when this happens at a paper like the Times, it is universally followed by a correction. In other words, the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration, they're going to involve other experts, and they're going to ask questions of the principals.
- rock_hard 8y ago
  I have not found this to be true. There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.
  - rubidium 8y ago
    Agreed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
    - rock_hard 8y ago
      Thanks for sharing the link. I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either. News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.
  - jlmorton 8y ago
    If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?
jstandard 8y ago
Tough problem to solve upstream, particularly in a "first-to-publish" news environment. Better fact-checking tools in the hands of the publisher is critical here. It's ultimately on the them to decide if it passes the smell test. I'll give publishers the benefit of the doubt that they at least attempt to corroborate anonymous tips with other sources. Perhaps some more accessible forms of anonymous expert networks with a trust/reputation system built-in can help, though the cynic in me sees how easily platforms like that can be manipulated. Harsher consequences for publishing false news is a slippery slope. It's necessary at a certain level, but quickly runs up a slippery slope that can end up with tightly state-controlled media like in other countries.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
It's not like someone sends an anonymous text message to them and they immediately publish it. They start investigating based on that tip.
duxup 8y ago
I would argue that people giving their names are inclined to only say certain things given the situation they are in. That would seem to outright eliminate a great deal of things that it would be good to know.
394549 8y ago
> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources Those sources aren't "anonymous sources," they're more accurately called confidential sources. You may see an story backed by no public sources. You then have to make a decision about whether you trust the publisher to have adequately checked the story using private sources. If the newspaper gets information from a truly anonymous source (say a classified military memo), they need to verify that it's authentic before they publish. They may do that by checking as much of the memo's content as they can and calling up people in the Pentagon and asking if they've seen that particular memo. Those people may not be willing to confirm the memo publicly (because that may open them up to legal problems), but if if their identity is kept private it's less risk to them so they may be willing to confirm it.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
CNN was caught last month blatantly lying about what an anonymous sources said when the source came out and said the exact opposite. CNN refuses to retract it. I just like that a lot of people are defending NYT anonymous sources while also sticking their head in the sand about THE CONTENT of the DNC and Podesta leaks that wikileaks published.
forapurpose 8y ago
From the NY Times instructions on their tips page: https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips What Makes a Good Tip? A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip.

code4tee 8y ago

That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.

qubex 8y ago
Somebody illustrious and learned once said something to the effect that “if somebody tells you it's raining outside, and somebody else tells you the sun is shining, your job as a journalist isn't to report that some people say one thing whereas others say something else, your job as a journalist is to go look out the window and report what the weather is actually doing”. What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  I heard another version of this the other day, a great line that's apparently some newspaper's motto: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out first."
  - gowld 8y ago
    There's a great story behind that, of course: https://medium.com/@Susys/lets-change-this-journalism-motto-because-if-your-mother-says-she-loves-you-check-it-out-a953b9a8d96c https://medium.com/@Susys/lets-change-this-journalism-motto-...
- KZeillmann 8y ago
  If you look at 24 hour cable news, I'm sure that's what you see. It's entertainment passed on as journalism. There's still good journalism going on if you know where to look. The New York Times, the Washington Post, for example, are incredibly informative and useful sources for news.
  - mdex 8y ago
    Neither the NYT or Washington Post questioned the Bush admin and intelligence communities claims about why the USA was going to war with Iraq even though it was public knowledge that the 9/11 attackers were all Saudis and it had nothing to do with 9/11. But the media helped them spin the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism, even though Iraq was not exporting terrorism to the West, not until after they destabilized the region by taking out Saddam. Instead, the NYT wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's WMDs were and how he was supporting terrorism, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. Nowadays they defend themselves by saying "everyone agreed at the time". It's not true. Mainstream media is a rubber stamp for corporate and state interests, just propaganda. They rubber stamped Bush's war's just like they rubber stamped Obamas, they will probably rubber stamp Trump's too. Yes, they also contain true information, but they are still just corporate/state propaganda. If they aren't willing to fact-check the govt for an issue as serious as going to war, especially with all the red-flags that were out there, like the fact that Colin Powell, a year prior to holding up anthrax in congress as "proof" that Iraq had WMDs, was giving speeches a year earlier claiming there was no evidence Saddam was making WMDs. Like the fact the Bush admin certainty about WMD was far greater than the actual intel communities claims. No one fact-checked them.
    - shaki-dora 8y ago
      Your talking point is old enough to have finished high school by now, maybe it’s time to come up with a second example? And, by the way, the NYT fired the reporter and an editor over that mistake, wrote numerous articles on how it happened, and instituted new rules to prevent similar things happening in the future.
- Loughla 8y ago
  >What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading. And the problem is compounded in that the internet, for all of its glories, has also taught folks that their opinions/beliefs/dogma are just as valuable as actual facts. I don't know what, how, or why. But the only two things different now to, say, the 80's in terms of bullshit journalism is its ability to reach people directly in a 'one-on-one' setting and its ability to be echoed with no challenge in online forums and the like.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Usually good anonymous tips are the sort tell the journalists where to look, who to ask, what questions to ask, etc. Allegations that there's a conspiracy to turn everyone into commies by putting fluoride in the water aren't taken seriously unless they include some way for the journalists to validate the claims (official documentation, for example).

wool_gather 8y ago

Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.

tertius 8y ago
So you're saying that no journalist would accept a tip from someone who will not identify themselves?
- lightbyte 8y ago
  Unless they can verify it some other way, I highly doubt any reputable journalist would publish something like that. When a journalists publishes something based on a source that wishes to stay anonymous they are putting their career and reputation on the line.
- patmcc 8y ago
  They may 'accept the tip' and then try to verify/track it down with other sources (and say "I've heard X, can you confirm that for me?"), but no, a reputable journalist will never publish a quote from an anonymous source with no verification.
- jhayward 8y ago
  A tip is just an investigative lead. "Hooker Chemical is dumping massive amounts of toxic waste at Love Canal" would be a tip. It would then be up to an investigative reporter to investigate, and report what the investigation uncovers. You may be thinking of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources". Those people may be quoted on a factual basis, but the reporter has an obligation to obtain the same kind of confirmation of their information as any other investigative lead.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > A tip is just an investigative lead. "Hooker Chemical is dumping massive amounts of toxic waste at Love Canal" would be a tip. Actually, that's not a tip by the NY Times definition: A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip. https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips

jlmorton 8y ago

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputable newspaper like the New York Times, and although all newspapers are sometimes mislead by their sources, or otherwise get things wrong, when this happens at a paper like the Times, it is universally followed by a correction. In other words, the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration, they're going to involve other experts, and they're going to ask questions of the principals.

rock_hard 8y ago
I have not found this to be true. There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.
- rubidium 8y ago
  Agreed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    Thanks for sharing the link. I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either. News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.
- jlmorton 8y ago
  If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?

jstandard 8y ago

Tough problem to solve upstream, particularly in a "first-to-publish" news environment. Better fact-checking tools in the hands of the publisher is critical here. It's ultimately on the them to decide if it passes the smell test. I'll give publishers the benefit of the doubt that they at least attempt to corroborate anonymous tips with other sources. Perhaps some more accessible forms of anonymous expert networks with a trust/reputation system built-in can help, though the cynic in me sees how easily platforms like that can be manipulated. Harsher consequences for publishing false news is a slippery slope. It's necessary at a certain level, but quickly runs up a slippery slope that can end up with tightly state-controlled media like in other countries.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

It's not like someone sends an anonymous text message to them and they immediately publish it. They start investigating based on that tip.

duxup 8y ago

I would argue that people giving their names are inclined to only say certain things given the situation they are in. That would seem to outright eliminate a great deal of things that it would be good to know.

394549 8y ago

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources Those sources aren't "anonymous sources," they're more accurately called confidential sources. You may see an story backed by no public sources. You then have to make a decision about whether you trust the publisher to have adequately checked the story using private sources. If the newspaper gets information from a truly anonymous source (say a classified military memo), they need to verify that it's authentic before they publish. They may do that by checking as much of the memo's content as they can and calling up people in the Pentagon and asking if they've seen that particular memo. Those people may not be willing to confirm the memo publicly (because that may open them up to legal problems), but if if their identity is kept private it's less risk to them so they may be willing to confirm it.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

CNN was caught last month blatantly lying about what an anonymous sources said when the source came out and said the exact opposite. CNN refuses to retract it. I just like that a lot of people are defending NYT anonymous sources while also sticking their head in the sand about THE CONTENT of the DNC and Podesta leaks that wikileaks published.

forapurpose 8y ago

From the NY Times instructions on their tips page: https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips What Makes a Good Tip? A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip.