4 ms·

> Hm, let's do a comparison. Do you think trust in the media would have been better or worse if media outlets had received leaked emails from Hillary Clinton's

> Hm, let's do a comparison. Do you think trust in the media would have been better or worse if media outlets had received leaked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign during the summer (some indicating, for instance, that some members of Hillary Clinton's campaign had conspired to acquire questions ahead of the Democratic debates), embargoed them until after the election, and then released them? It depends! What is the source of the information? Does the source have incentive to fabricate or exaggerate their claims? Can other trustworthy sources confirm the information? Does the information hold up to critical scrutiny? Does the information matter? If the answer to these questions are all yes, then I think the media acted in a trustworthy way. If not, then I don't think so. My argument is not that embarrassing information should be withheld because of an an election. Instead, my argument is that news media should not publish any and all information without the due process of journalism. If the claims hold up to scrutiny, then sure, publish it! If the claims don't hold up, then don't publish it. > "bad-faith actors are afoot (which seems the case here)" -> I don't see why the 'faith' of the actors really has any relevance as to whether the information is in the public interest to know. No, but bad faith actors have an incentive to inject noise into the news cycle, and in turn, have incentive to fabricate or exaggerate claims. Journalists and their editors, when they believe information is given in bad faith, should hold it to a higher level of scrutiny so that they avoid mischaracterizing a story. edit: typo

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Instead, my argument is that news media should not publish any and all information without the due process of journalism. If the claims hold up to scrutiny, then sure, publish it! If the claims don't hold up, then don't publish it. The emails exist and I think have gone through the same amount of due process as other leaked documents. Here's NYTs David Barstow (who broke the Trump tax returns) discussing why the faith of the leaker/hacker does not matter: https://soundcloud.com/user-593288826/the-investigative-journalist-who-broke-open-trumps-taxes-doesnt-care-who-the-source-is https://soundcloud.com/user-593288826/the-investigative-jour...
- garden_hermit 6y ago
  > The emails exist and I think have gone through the same amount of due process as other leaked documents. I'm not convinced. The story was initially rejected from several outlets and even struggled to get a byline in the NYPost. This is on top of the questionable provenance of the laptop and the lack of metadata on the files. All of this for a story that, at least in my view, isn't even very remarkable. > Here's NYTs David Barstow (who broke the Trump tax returns) discussing why the faith of the leaker/hacker does not matter: I think my point isn't clear—a bad faith actor doesn't intrinsically make their information less truthful. The veracity of the information is a completely independent factor. My argument is that, when someone brings new information, and you expect this person to be acting in bad faith, you should evaluate that information with extra scrutiny, because they have incentive to fabricate and to stretch the truth. The information may, ultimately, be truthful, in which case good! check it, double-check it, and publish it! But their word shouldn't be taken for granted just because the story is exciting.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> Instead, my argument is that news media should not publish any and all information without the due process of journalism. If the claims hold up to scrutiny, then sure, publish it! If the claims don't hold up, then don't publish it. The emails exist and I think have gone through the same amount of due process as other leaked documents. Here's NYTs David Barstow (who broke the Trump tax returns) discussing why the faith of the leaker/hacker does not matter: https://soundcloud.com/user-593288826/the-investigative-journalist-who-broke-open-trumps-taxes-doesnt-care-who-the-source-is https://soundcloud.com/user-593288826/the-investigative-jour...

garden_hermit 6y ago
> The emails exist and I think have gone through the same amount of due process as other leaked documents. I'm not convinced. The story was initially rejected from several outlets and even struggled to get a byline in the NYPost. This is on top of the questionable provenance of the laptop and the lack of metadata on the files. All of this for a story that, at least in my view, isn't even very remarkable. > Here's NYTs David Barstow (who broke the Trump tax returns) discussing why the faith of the leaker/hacker does not matter: I think my point isn't clear—a bad faith actor doesn't intrinsically make their information less truthful. The veracity of the information is a completely independent factor. My argument is that, when someone brings new information, and you expect this person to be acting in bad faith, you should evaluate that information with extra scrutiny, because they have incentive to fabricate and to stretch the truth. The information may, ultimately, be truthful, in which case good! check it, double-check it, and publish it! But their word shouldn't be taken for granted just because the story is exciting.