4 ms·

The thing that annoys me about this the most is the use of anonymous sources. If you are writing a scientific article, or generally hope to establish some scien

by sjroot 8y ago

The thing that annoys me about this the most is the use of anonymous sources. If you are writing a scientific article, or generally hope to establish some scientific fact, I do not think it is appropriate to hide behind a veil of anonymity.

dylan604 8y ago
I totally agree. People speaking on condition of anonimity because they are not authorized to discuss is one of the most annoying things about news today. As the reader, I just don’t trust the info. In recent news, BuzzFeed seems to have been recently burned and the SuperMicro hack sources seemed to have burned the journalists as well (don’t remember which outlet that was). It seems like people are fed up enough to break confidentiality agreements to leak info, but not fed up enough to quit and leave the hostile environment. I still appreciate the Snowden method. Got fed up to the point that the info must be released, but did not hide to keep his job. Also, some leaks are from official sources like a press secretary or similar official, but staying anonymous to float information as a trial balloon so there’s some plausible deniability if the balloon was made of lead. In marketing, the leaked photos seem to be an internally approved method to get free PR.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  Bloomberg
- rchaud 8y ago
  > People speaking on condition of anonimity because they are not authorized to discuss is one of the most annoying things about news today. This has likely annoyed people since the beginning of anything related to journalistic inquiry. If these people didn't have a guarantee of anonymity, the public would be in the dark most of the time. > I still appreciate the Snowden method. Got fed up to the point that the info must be released, but did not hide to keep his job. Not everybody is in Snowden's position; relatively young, unmarried, no kids. He may be able to take this "cool guys don't look back at explosions" approach, but most people can't. That doesn't mean that what they know should remain hidden from view because it doesn't meet your standards for what a 'real whistleblower' looks like. Snowden is also essentially trapped in Russia. The only reason he was able to find refuge there at all is because his revelations are a useful symbol of American hypocrisy any time the words "surveillance state" are bandied about in discussions about Russia. He's a smart guy and probably knows that the Kremlin's generosity will last only as long as he doesn't try to rock the boat by commenting on domestic Russian matters.
Symmetry 8y ago
I didn't find that part of the story particularly problematic. If there were people in a field capable of ending the careers of people who criticize them then you're going to need anonymous sources.
- sjroot 8y ago
  That’s why I clarified that my thought applies to scientific writing. If you’re going to criticize the claim (and evidence that supports the claim) made in a research paper, then you should bring your own body of evidence and stick your neck out. Science can’t be done behind closed doors. That said, the world I’m describing is ideal, unlike our own.

by sjroot 8y ago

dylan604 8y ago

I totally agree. People speaking on condition of anonimity because they are not authorized to discuss is one of the most annoying things about news today. As the reader, I just don’t trust the info. In recent news, BuzzFeed seems to have been recently burned and the SuperMicro hack sources seemed to have burned the journalists as well (don’t remember which outlet that was). It seems like people are fed up enough to break confidentiality agreements to leak info, but not fed up enough to quit and leave the hostile environment. I still appreciate the Snowden method. Got fed up to the point that the info must be released, but did not hide to keep his job. Also, some leaks are from official sources like a press secretary or similar official, but staying anonymous to float information as a trial balloon so there’s some plausible deniability if the balloon was made of lead. In marketing, the leaked photos seem to be an internally approved method to get free PR.

dwighttk 8y ago
Bloomberg
rchaud 8y ago
> People speaking on condition of anonimity because they are not authorized to discuss is one of the most annoying things about news today. This has likely annoyed people since the beginning of anything related to journalistic inquiry. If these people didn't have a guarantee of anonymity, the public would be in the dark most of the time. > I still appreciate the Snowden method. Got fed up to the point that the info must be released, but did not hide to keep his job. Not everybody is in Snowden's position; relatively young, unmarried, no kids. He may be able to take this "cool guys don't look back at explosions" approach, but most people can't. That doesn't mean that what they know should remain hidden from view because it doesn't meet your standards for what a 'real whistleblower' looks like. Snowden is also essentially trapped in Russia. The only reason he was able to find refuge there at all is because his revelations are a useful symbol of American hypocrisy any time the words "surveillance state" are bandied about in discussions about Russia. He's a smart guy and probably knows that the Kremlin's generosity will last only as long as he doesn't try to rock the boat by commenting on domestic Russian matters.

Symmetry 8y ago

I didn't find that part of the story particularly problematic. If there were people in a field capable of ending the careers of people who criticize them then you're going to need anonymous sources.

sjroot 8y ago
That’s why I clarified that my thought applies to scientific writing. If you’re going to criticize the claim (and evidence that supports the claim) made in a research paper, then you should bring your own body of evidence and stick your neck out. Science can’t be done behind closed doors. That said, the world I’m describing is ideal, unlike our own.