3 ms·

I like this in outline -- the notion that what you could call the "acute" effects (e.g. its impact on the news cycle) of a story like this may be more visible a

I like this in outline -- the notion that what you could call the "acute" effects (e.g. its impact on the news cycle) of a story like this may be more visible and less important than its "chronic" effects inside institutions, where people take more serious notice. (That's if I'm reading you right.) I guess what I'm less sure about is the inevitability that you're painting it with. Seems a bit "whiggish" [1], in my reading, if for no other reason than seeing brighter days on this front in the past than in the present and immediate future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

playpause 5y ago
Yes, that’s a fair reading. I would add that it’s vitally important for the journalists to get the ‘acute’ part right, being mindful of media cycles etc, to properly establish the the leak in the public record and in the minds of relevant parties such as investigators and other journalists. But yes, the real work gets done in the years following. It’s lots of work by lots of people on lots of boring things. It won’t be cinematic. There won’t be a catharsis. Wikipedia has an article on outcomes from the 2016 Panama Papers [1]. Lots of boring things. I see what you mean about whiggish (good word). But well, I do think it is more or less inevitable that there will be outcomes that certain people don’t want, otherwise they wouldn’t have been trying to hide their finances from regulators. And I would speculate those outcomes will probably be pretty positive, if added up together, such that the journalists and whistleblowers involved in the leak should feel immensely proud. But my main point is that the extent of general public outrage over the original data leak is irrelevant to how positive the eventual outcomes will turn out to be. In which ways do you think it was brighter on this front in the past? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Pape...

playpause 5y ago

Yes, that’s a fair reading. I would add that it’s vitally important for the journalists to get the ‘acute’ part right, being mindful of media cycles etc, to properly establish the the leak in the public record and in the minds of relevant parties such as investigators and other journalists. But yes, the real work gets done in the years following. It’s lots of work by lots of people on lots of boring things. It won’t be cinematic. There won’t be a catharsis. Wikipedia has an article on outcomes from the 2016 Panama Papers [1]. Lots of boring things. I see what you mean about whiggish (good word). But well, I do think it is more or less inevitable that there will be outcomes that certain people don’t want, otherwise they wouldn’t have been trying to hide their finances from regulators. And I would speculate those outcomes will probably be pretty positive, if added up together, such that the journalists and whistleblowers involved in the leak should feel immensely proud. But my main point is that the extent of general public outrage over the original data leak is irrelevant to how positive the eventual outcomes will turn out to be. In which ways do you think it was brighter on this front in the past? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Pape...