6 ms·

but also "anonymous source" has been used to write anything the paper actually just wants to say

dragontamer 3y ago
Then your issue isn't bias but trust. The article is written in a very straightforward manner, if these facts are in fact true. According to this alleged document. This isn't an anonymous source. This is a leaked document from Twitter management. Presumably NYTimes can eventually release more details if pushed on this issue and offer more solid proof.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  It seems that it is literally an anonymous (not named) source.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    I'm not sure if you're... into newspaper lingo. But "anonymous source" usually means "Dude who emails reporter", and often someone who is an executive level or above. You know, someone who matters, but for their own sake they need to stay anonymous. If its just a document, then the "source is the document". You don't need to quote an anonymous person (who likely has their own biases), you just quote the document itself. These words that journalists use? They have meaning. "Anonymous source" is not how the story is described. It is described, rather precisely, as "internal documents".
    - smotched 3y ago
      no, the source is not the document, the document comes from a source. In a journalistic context, a source is a person. That's why words like "my source" are used.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > the source is not the document, the document comes from a source You’re literally commenting on an article citing “an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times.”
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        Its not clear at all if there even is a "person" in this context. Ex: lets say New York Times reporter was let into Twitter HQ for some kind of interview. The reporter noticed that a computer was open, so they stuck a thumb-drive in and grabbed the document. No human source, but the document is likely valid. ------------ Alternatively, Twitter could have posted some document to an internal Slack or Discord meeting, and New York Times reporter may have the know-how to enter into those private channels or grab something from Discord. There's no reason to assume that they worked with a Twitter insider to grab this document. Not everything is a leak. Old school Journalism is basically spycraft, a reporter can sometimes just grab something to get a good scoop. ------------- Or maybe the slides were just laying around on a table, printed out. Etc. etc. So maybe its not a computer document at all, but a bunch of slides that they dug out of the dumpster.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    News outlets peddle trust. And given their history, I'm inclined to trust the NYT over Twitter executive today
rsynnott 3y ago
Every time there’s an article about virtually anything on Hacker News, this line comes up. Tell me, how do you think the media should report on governments and companies, if not through protected sources? Like, do you want them to just be press release machines?

Then your issue isn't bias but trust. The article is written in a very straightforward manner, if these facts are in fact true. According to this alleged document. This isn't an anonymous source. This is a leaked document from Twitter management. Presumably NYTimes can eventually release more details if pushed on this issue and offer more solid proof.

sokoloff 3y ago
It seems that it is literally an anonymous (not named) source.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  I'm not sure if you're... into newspaper lingo. But "anonymous source" usually means "Dude who emails reporter", and often someone who is an executive level or above. You know, someone who matters, but for their own sake they need to stay anonymous. If its just a document, then the "source is the document". You don't need to quote an anonymous person (who likely has their own biases), you just quote the document itself. These words that journalists use? They have meaning. "Anonymous source" is not how the story is described. It is described, rather precisely, as "internal documents".
  - smotched 3y ago
    no, the source is not the document, the document comes from a source. In a journalistic context, a source is a person. That's why words like "my source" are used.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the source is not the document, the document comes from a source You’re literally commenting on an article citing “an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times.”
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      Its not clear at all if there even is a "person" in this context. Ex: lets say New York Times reporter was let into Twitter HQ for some kind of interview. The reporter noticed that a computer was open, so they stuck a thumb-drive in and grabbed the document. No human source, but the document is likely valid. ------------ Alternatively, Twitter could have posted some document to an internal Slack or Discord meeting, and New York Times reporter may have the know-how to enter into those private channels or grab something from Discord. There's no reason to assume that they worked with a Twitter insider to grab this document. Not everything is a leak. Old school Journalism is basically spycraft, a reporter can sometimes just grab something to get a good scoop. ------------- Or maybe the slides were just laying around on a table, printed out. Etc. etc. So maybe its not a computer document at all, but a bunch of slides that they dug out of the dumpster.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  News outlets peddle trust. And given their history, I'm inclined to trust the NYT over Twitter executive today

rsynnott 3y ago

Every time there’s an article about virtually anything on Hacker News, this line comes up. Tell me, how do you think the media should report on governments and companies, if not through protected sources? Like, do you want them to just be press release machines?