6 ms·

I have an objection to a particular paragraph: > > We understand that nearly everyone who provides material to a reporter is doing so in ways that reflect thei

I have an objection to a particular paragraph: > > We understand that nearly everyone who provides material to a reporter is doing so in ways that reflect their worldview, agenda or biases. We have long held that those motives are irrelevant if the information is reliable. > This is an … insane statement? — both rationally and morally. Truth can't ever be a sole criteria for publishing. It's necessary, but not sufficient. To suggest otherwise ought to flunk someone out of first year journalism school. This is a misinterpretation of the quoted text. Propublica says that the motive of the source is not part of the set of criteria for publishing (unless it the information is unreliable), not that reliability is the sole criterion for publishing. Propublica's article explicitly says that privacy is a legitimate concern. "One of the billionaires mentioned in this article objected, arguing that publishing personal tax information is a violation of privacy. We have concluded that the public interest in knowing this information at this pivotal moment outweighs that legitimate concern."

jeremy_arnold 5y ago
OP here. Pondering this.
- op00to 5y ago
  Good to know you’re pondering.
- specialist 5y ago
  "Delaying a tax is not avoiding a tax. Tax avoidance is a term of art (distinct from tax evasion) that speaks to maximizing deductions/credits and optimizing income categorization. ..." Dragging debate into the minutiae distracts from the cogent moral objection. Time honored technique. Observing that inequity is accelerating does not and should not require a CPA. "They’re right about the laws, but incurious about why the laws are that way (not just in the US, but across the developed world).:" Opinions differ. You do not cite the original precedent setting court case. Nor do you cite the prescient objections which have proven true. Further, you do not acknowledge the central issue, nor offer any guidance or wisdom for possible remedies. Lastly, I don't like your clickbait title.
mc32 5y ago
>One of the billionaires mentioned in this article objected, arguing that publishing personal tax information is a violation of privacy. We have concluded that the public interest in knowing this information at this pivotal moment outweighs that legitimate concern I don't see why they couldn't have anonymized the data [bracketed] and have the same impact. Exact figures are less relevant than providing a picture of what's going on. I think the only reason is to doxx and "shame" or whatever unrelated rationale they have. And why isn't Twitter suspending their account for doxxing --which they appear to apply unevenly but usually not levelled against birds of a feather.
- 3np 5y ago
  These billionaires are significant public people enough that this absolutely falls in the public interest enough to warrant disclosing their identities. Same with politicians. There is legal precedence for this and the norm in journalism.
  - mc32 5y ago
    What? Who says so? A politician politicking or a person trading on their looks or public stage persona certainly can expect some invasion of privacy, but even they don’t deserve illegal means of information gathering[1] even less a person just because they happen to be billionaires. “Norms” don’t define things as right. I’m pretty sure we can think of some dark examples. [1]I think I read about something called “The Watergate Scandal” about illegal gathering of information...
    - Uehreka 5y ago
      Elon Musk isn’t trading on his public stage persona? That aside, I guess I just don’t have much sympathy. If certain “rules” are gonna apply to billionaires and not normal people, that seems fine by me. It might seem “biased” or “unfair” to some people, but hey: Who ever said we were operating in a “fair” context to begin with? Sure this kind of bias could be turned against more vulnerable people, it already is, it’s about time it got turned against the people at the top.
    - 5y ago
Mauricebranagh 5y ago
When did a journalist ever not claim "public interest" I am sure that the paparazzi that chased princess Di to heard death would claim that.
- md_ 5y ago
  Indeed, this is such a pervasive question for journalists that they have entire courses on "journalistic ethics." ProPublica even wrote a long statement on why they believe publishing this is ethical, legal, and in the public interest: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the.... You can of course disagree with their reasoning, but Arnold—who claims to be, it is worth noting, a paid PR flack for tech companies—is being disingenuous* to suggest that ProPublica claimed their "sole criteria for publishing" is "truth". * By which I mean, to be perfectly clear, he's a liar.
  - jeremy_arnold 5y ago
    lol at "paid flack". Brb gonna update my LinkedIn. Anyway, I awarded a correction bounty here. I'd said in the same piece "if your only criteria for publishing are some measure of verification and some measure of newsworthiness", but used poor phrasing in saying "sole criteria" prior. I don't think it was likely to mislead the fair reader. But a mistake is a mistake, and I'm happy to own it.
    - md_ 5y ago
      You wrote before, "TLDR is I'm a copywriter turned comms consultant. I work mostly with tech companies." "lol at" = not actually denying it, so not technically lying, right? ;)
      - jeremy_arnold 5y ago
        Flack is a pejorative, and really speaks to spokespeople, which I'm not. I write all the time about what my day job is, and I regularly disclose it whenever there is even an vague intersection with a story I'm writing. It's not a secret! Lots of people drift between comms and public writing. When there's a perception of conflict, they disclose. As do I. Pretty routine.
jeremy_arnold 5y ago
OP here. Slept on it. I said in that same segment "if your only criteria for publishing are some measure of verification and some measure of newsworthiness". In re-reading their piece, that's all they checked for. So what I said seems substantially accurate to me. But as a matter of phrasing, it's true that I used "sole criteria" above, which was sloppy. So I'll award a bounty on that. See your email.

jeremy_arnold 5y ago

OP here. Pondering this.

op00to 5y ago
Good to know you’re pondering.
specialist 5y ago
"Delaying a tax is not avoiding a tax. Tax avoidance is a term of art (distinct from tax evasion) that speaks to maximizing deductions/credits and optimizing income categorization. ..." Dragging debate into the minutiae distracts from the cogent moral objection. Time honored technique. Observing that inequity is accelerating does not and should not require a CPA. "They’re right about the laws, but incurious about why the laws are that way (not just in the US, but across the developed world).:" Opinions differ. You do not cite the original precedent setting court case. Nor do you cite the prescient objections which have proven true. Further, you do not acknowledge the central issue, nor offer any guidance or wisdom for possible remedies. Lastly, I don't like your clickbait title.

mc32 5y ago

>One of the billionaires mentioned in this article objected, arguing that publishing personal tax information is a violation of privacy. We have concluded that the public interest in knowing this information at this pivotal moment outweighs that legitimate concern I don't see why they couldn't have anonymized the data [bracketed] and have the same impact. Exact figures are less relevant than providing a picture of what's going on. I think the only reason is to doxx and "shame" or whatever unrelated rationale they have. And why isn't Twitter suspending their account for doxxing --which they appear to apply unevenly but usually not levelled against birds of a feather.

3np 5y ago
These billionaires are significant public people enough that this absolutely falls in the public interest enough to warrant disclosing their identities. Same with politicians. There is legal precedence for this and the norm in journalism.
- mc32 5y ago
  What? Who says so? A politician politicking or a person trading on their looks or public stage persona certainly can expect some invasion of privacy, but even they don’t deserve illegal means of information gathering[1] even less a person just because they happen to be billionaires. “Norms” don’t define things as right. I’m pretty sure we can think of some dark examples. [1]I think I read about something called “The Watergate Scandal” about illegal gathering of information...
  - Uehreka 5y ago
    Elon Musk isn’t trading on his public stage persona? That aside, I guess I just don’t have much sympathy. If certain “rules” are gonna apply to billionaires and not normal people, that seems fine by me. It might seem “biased” or “unfair” to some people, but hey: Who ever said we were operating in a “fair” context to begin with? Sure this kind of bias could be turned against more vulnerable people, it already is, it’s about time it got turned against the people at the top.
  - 5y ago

Mauricebranagh 5y ago

When did a journalist ever not claim "public interest" I am sure that the paparazzi that chased princess Di to heard death would claim that.

md_ 5y ago
Indeed, this is such a pervasive question for journalists that they have entire courses on "journalistic ethics." ProPublica even wrote a long statement on why they believe publishing this is ethical, legal, and in the public interest: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the.... You can of course disagree with their reasoning, but Arnold—who claims to be, it is worth noting, a paid PR flack for tech companies—is being disingenuous* to suggest that ProPublica claimed their "sole criteria for publishing" is "truth". * By which I mean, to be perfectly clear, he's a liar.
- jeremy_arnold 5y ago
  lol at "paid flack". Brb gonna update my LinkedIn. Anyway, I awarded a correction bounty here. I'd said in the same piece "if your only criteria for publishing are some measure of verification and some measure of newsworthiness", but used poor phrasing in saying "sole criteria" prior. I don't think it was likely to mislead the fair reader. But a mistake is a mistake, and I'm happy to own it.
  - md_ 5y ago
    You wrote before, "TLDR is I'm a copywriter turned comms consultant. I work mostly with tech companies." "lol at" = not actually denying it, so not technically lying, right? ;)
    - jeremy_arnold 5y ago
      Flack is a pejorative, and really speaks to spokespeople, which I'm not. I write all the time about what my day job is, and I regularly disclose it whenever there is even an vague intersection with a story I'm writing. It's not a secret! Lots of people drift between comms and public writing. When there's a perception of conflict, they disclose. As do I. Pretty routine.

jeremy_arnold 5y ago

OP here. Slept on it. I said in that same segment "if your only criteria for publishing are some measure of verification and some measure of newsworthiness". In re-reading their piece, that's all they checked for. So what I said seems substantially accurate to me. But as a matter of phrasing, it's true that I used "sole criteria" above, which was sloppy. So I'll award a bounty on that. See your email.