3 ms·

It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a replacement. The story repeatedly says they have

It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a replacement. The story repeatedly says they have no idea what grounds there could be for a raid, and it's probably retaliation for the guy's reporting. Those insinuations should not be in there at all, and note that they did repeat some of the government's claims: > Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek’s laptop during their raid. Those are probably the same sources that told Siegel about the CSAM. The sources are trustworthy or not, you can't just pick which of their claims you like.

derefr 4y ago
> The sources are trustworthy or not Read that quote carefully — there's two layers to it. The source is "familiar with the matter" — the journalist trusts what they have to say. What the source says, though, is that federal agents allegedly found classified information. In other words, the source claims that the federal agents themselves are claiming this; but the source does not put any credence in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in such a way that the journalist would put credence into it. If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.
- burkaman 4y ago
  Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly, but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged allegations from the same source you include, and replace their unverified allegations with your own. Source: Federal agents found classified documents and CSAM on his computer. Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified documents on his computer. The question looms on what grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate reporting activities?
  - wytewulf 4y ago
    Im posting this as an alt for what I think are obvious reasons. If you're good at searching google, duckduckgo, various tor search engines and IPFS, child porn is not hard to find. (It is NOT my thing, btw. Ive ran across it in some tor researching. Alas.) However, in most states, possession is a statutory charge. To that end, it means if images end up on a computer <whistles>, and there's an anonymous tip, its going to end badly, cause with the statutory nature, simple possession is highly illegal. Now to be fair, Stallman got into hot water due to his lacklustre way of expressing this issue. It's documentation of a heinous crime - one that should likely be a death penalty case - but the images themselves shouldn't carry criminal charge, let alone a statutory criminal charge. Frankly, thats due to how easy they are to acquire, and of a "youre guilty due to simple possession" aspect, even if you were unaware. I also have to wonder, since a journalist doing research into classified govt stuff.. It's really easy to plant those images, and then find them. And you don't even need to hack into a computer. Just leave a thumbdrive hanging around with a label like "hard candy" in the premises, and instant 100+ year felony charge with automatic public assumption of guilt. Having such a "child porn charge" against a journalist doing sensitive research is certainly a great way to get that person permanently out of your hair, and to send a message to anyone else foolish enough to go near their work.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  The use of the word “allegedly” is standard practice for reputable new organisations reporting on an individual being charged, but not yet convicted. A core tenet of the justice system is the idea that your innocence until proven guilty. Hence the use of the word “allegedly”, by default any claims made by the government shouldn’t be treated as proven, until they’ve proved them in a court of law. To assume that a law enforcement official, or prosecutors charges are true before they’ve proven them in a court of law would be to ignore due process. To publish those charges as facts, would be libel.
  - derefr 4y ago
    Everything you're saying would be true if it was the journalist themselves doing the alledging. But the journalist is quoting a source through paraphrase, and the source is doing the alledging. It is not libel to say "An anonymous source said [libelous thing.]" Because there is no claim made through that statement that what the anonymous source is saying, is true. The only claim being made through that statement is that that claim is in fact what the source said. If the anonymous source wasn't anonymous, maybe they'd be guilty of libel. But the journalist isn't. They're just reporting on the libel someone else is committing.

derefr 4y ago

> The sources are trustworthy or not Read that quote carefully — there's two layers to it. The source is "familiar with the matter" — the journalist trusts what they have to say. What the source says, though, is that federal agents allegedly found classified information. In other words, the source claims that the federal agents themselves are claiming this; but the source does not put any credence in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in such a way that the journalist would put credence into it. If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.

burkaman 4y ago
Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly, but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged allegations from the same source you include, and replace their unverified allegations with your own. Source: Federal agents found classified documents and CSAM on his computer. Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified documents on his computer. The question looms on what grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate reporting activities?
- wytewulf 4y ago
  Im posting this as an alt for what I think are obvious reasons. If you're good at searching google, duckduckgo, various tor search engines and IPFS, child porn is not hard to find. (It is NOT my thing, btw. Ive ran across it in some tor researching. Alas.) However, in most states, possession is a statutory charge. To that end, it means if images end up on a computer <whistles>, and there's an anonymous tip, its going to end badly, cause with the statutory nature, simple possession is highly illegal. Now to be fair, Stallman got into hot water due to his lacklustre way of expressing this issue. It's documentation of a heinous crime - one that should likely be a death penalty case - but the images themselves shouldn't carry criminal charge, let alone a statutory criminal charge. Frankly, thats due to how easy they are to acquire, and of a "youre guilty due to simple possession" aspect, even if you were unaware. I also have to wonder, since a journalist doing research into classified govt stuff.. It's really easy to plant those images, and then find them. And you don't even need to hack into a computer. Just leave a thumbdrive hanging around with a label like "hard candy" in the premises, and instant 100+ year felony charge with automatic public assumption of guilt. Having such a "child porn charge" against a journalist doing sensitive research is certainly a great way to get that person permanently out of your hair, and to send a message to anyone else foolish enough to go near their work.
avianlyric 4y ago
The use of the word “allegedly” is standard practice for reputable new organisations reporting on an individual being charged, but not yet convicted. A core tenet of the justice system is the idea that your innocence until proven guilty. Hence the use of the word “allegedly”, by default any claims made by the government shouldn’t be treated as proven, until they’ve proved them in a court of law. To assume that a law enforcement official, or prosecutors charges are true before they’ve proven them in a court of law would be to ignore due process. To publish those charges as facts, would be libel.
- derefr 4y ago
  Everything you're saying would be true if it was the journalist themselves doing the alledging. But the journalist is quoting a source through paraphrase, and the source is doing the alledging. It is not libel to say "An anonymous source said [libelous thing.]" Because there is no claim made through that statement that what the anonymous source is saying, is true. The only claim being made through that statement is that that claim is in fact what the source said. If the anonymous source wasn't anonymous, maybe they'd be guilty of libel. But the journalist isn't. They're just reporting on the libel someone else is committing.