3 ms·

I have doubts about whether a source who has supplied misinformation should continue to be given anonymity. Is this unfashionable? Seems that maybe should a ca

by harry8 4y ago

I have doubts about whether a source who has supplied misinformation should continue to be given anonymity. Is this unfashionable? Seems that maybe should a case arise where a government official lies in a way that is consistent with getting the public to support military action, they are not a "source" and deserve no protection whatsoever. They should go from feeding the false story to being the true story in short order. Is that nuts? What am I missing? These kinds of liars will avoid speaking to your publication in the future and that's a bad thing? Something more?

function_seven 4y ago
You're not nuts, but the side-effects of this would destroy the sourcing for all other news. Imagine you work at $INTEL_AGENCY, and you truly believe that a missile was fired from Russia. That info came across your desk from two separate analysts or trusted sources or whatever. You leak this to a reporter. Then it turns out that your info was wrong and the reporter outs you as the source. Will anyone ever be a source under these circumstances? Even if they're acting in good faith? No. Not worth he risk of destroying your career or even your freedom. If I'm a reporter, I will put this name in my own "Brady" list of untrustworthy sources, but I won't make all future sources wary of me by outing them.
- harry8 4y ago
  At what point is it no longer tenable to say it was an honest mistake? What did the source have to gain from leaking the story? How do you avoid being used by some other source to plant a false story in the future? How do you avoid this source picking someone else to plant their next one? Is there really no way to balance "destroy all sourcing for other news" with "not be a patsy for WMD style propaganda?"
mongol 4y ago
Like eating the goose that lays golden eggs. Why be the source to a news org if they can suddenly turn on you and make you the news?
- harry8 4y ago
  The idea is that they do that if you manipulate them into printing a lie. Think Weapons of Mass Destruction here. Or "Putin is paying bounties to kill Americans in Afghanistan." Something that is clearly both false and fabricated for the effect it will have on the public to smooth the way for something (maybe something noble even, doesn't matter) politically by heading off public opinion. You should be terrified of doing that if that's what you're doing. Seems like right now those pushing such lies have nothing whatsoever at stake. There is no reckoning at all when it comes out. Is that the way it should be?

by harry8 4y ago

function_seven 4y ago

You're not nuts, but the side-effects of this would destroy the sourcing for all other news. Imagine you work at $INTEL_AGENCY, and you truly believe that a missile was fired from Russia. That info came across your desk from two separate analysts or trusted sources or whatever. You leak this to a reporter. Then it turns out that your info was wrong and the reporter outs you as the source. Will anyone ever be a source under these circumstances? Even if they're acting in good faith? No. Not worth he risk of destroying your career or even your freedom. If I'm a reporter, I will put this name in my own "Brady" list of untrustworthy sources, but I won't make all future sources wary of me by outing them.

harry8 4y ago
At what point is it no longer tenable to say it was an honest mistake? What did the source have to gain from leaking the story? How do you avoid being used by some other source to plant a false story in the future? How do you avoid this source picking someone else to plant their next one? Is there really no way to balance "destroy all sourcing for other news" with "not be a patsy for WMD style propaganda?"

mongol 4y ago

Like eating the goose that lays golden eggs. Why be the source to a news org if they can suddenly turn on you and make you the news?

harry8 4y ago
The idea is that they do that if you manipulate them into printing a lie. Think Weapons of Mass Destruction here. Or "Putin is paying bounties to kill Americans in Afghanistan." Something that is clearly both false and fabricated for the effect it will have on the public to smooth the way for something (maybe something noble even, doesn't matter) politically by heading off public opinion. You should be terrified of doing that if that's what you're doing. Seems like right now those pushing such lies have nothing whatsoever at stake. There is no reckoning at all when it comes out. Is that the way it should be?