4 ms·
> That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles. It’s the “Washington Game” of “official leaks”, dissemi
by bilekas 1y ago
> That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles. It’s the “Washington Game” of “official leaks”, disseminating propaganda without being held accountable.
Yeah makes a lot of sense when framed like this, the timing of the secret service of all people busting this 'huge' operation was far too suspicious.
- mcintyre1994 1y agoAlso seems to be the first time NYT has used that form of words according to Google `site:nytimes.com “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”` has no earlier results Other outlets have used “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation” before though.
- Brendinooo 1y ago`site:nytimes.com “anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation"` shows more than one hit.
- WastedCucumber 1y agoJust in a cursory check into some of the other articles using the phrase, it seems like they're mostly cases where an investigator might encounter retaliation for speaking out. It's hard to imagine that happening for the present example.
- eagleal 1y agoUsually it's not allowed for people involved in an ongoing investigation to talk about said investigation. Maybe the US is different.
- sixhobbits 1y agoThat's a long enough phrase to be unique. Journalists often agree to speak to all kinds of sources "on condition of anonymity". Even if you just don't want to be sued by your employer you might not be comfortable being named. Overall I found the substack author to tell a good story and speak with what seems to be relevant technical experience so I reposted the link that I saw in another hn thread as a separate story, but as other commentors have pointed out it's possible that both he and the original journalist are hyping up conspiracies in both directions (compromised press vs state actor hackers) and actually the truth is often a more boring mid ground (Journalists hyping up stories and shady people doing shady things)
- stevage 1y agoThe wording I often see is along the lines of "a source who was not authorised to discuss the case publicly".
- stevage 1y ago>That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles Are they just making up these "normal journalistic principles"? I see different newspapers publishing quotes anonymously under similar conditions all the time.
- BlackFly 1y agoThe author explains it in the next sentence. > It’s the “Washington Game” of “official leaks”, disseminating propaganda without being held accountable. In general, you can spot this kind of propaganda by realizing that the anonymous source is actually promoting the government's position and so isn't actually in danger. I.E. they aren't a whistleblower, they have no reason to fear repercussions.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoWouldn't there be repercussions for discussing an ongoing investigation with a journalist?
- Mtinie 1y agoNot if people higher in the agency the employee works with are aware of the contact and have blessed it as a useful conduit to establish a narrative.
- BlackFly 1y agoThey are obviously allowed to discuss certain aspects, "We have a suspect," "We have our best detective, Sherlock Holmes, working on the case," "Here is a photograph of our suspect, please contact us if you have any information regarding the suspect." Then there are other aspects that they would be prohibited from sharing in some legal jurisdictions, that hinge on privacy law (divulging sensitive but irrelevant details regarding the suspects alibi that they learned by interviewing the suspect) or on affecting potential jury members. Instead they use the idea that they aren't allowed to share any information to just avoid answering questions.
- 1y ago