3 ms·

It's a sad day when a US based publication is leading the charge to protect its sources to ensure the vitality of the freedom of the press. I had expected this

It's a sad day when a US based publication is leading the charge to protect its sources to ensure the vitality of the freedom of the press. I had expected this in an authoritarian regime, not here.

brown9-2 13y ago
I disagree. Sometimes maintaining that type of freedom of the press requires strong vigilance and defense on the side of the press, rather than taking it as a given.
Jun8 13y ago
In a real authoritarian regime this page would not have existed at all due to government pressure (or would have been a honeypot for government). Such regimes generally work through the double whammy of threat of action (legal or thug-based, e.g. in Russia) to the actual reporters who uncover dirt and subtler threats/coercions to their bosses, the latter of which leads to self-censorship and is much preferred. A recent example of the second approach is the suppression of news about the bombing in Reyhanli in the Turkish press.
- salimmadjd 13y ago
  I considered the same argument you are making before posting my comment. However, for this to have happened in USA it means we are half way there or getting there. The media is controlled by two factions now: Government through access (you don't get to come to white house if you piss us off or you wont get the interview) Large corporations and the major characters behind them. (i.e. Fox news, Viacom, etc. This is not the path to maintain an open society. We don't need thugs like less sophisticated media controlled countries , we control media in a much more elegant way. But the results are the same!
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    As the blog post announcing this points out (http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introducing-strongbox-anonymous-document-sharing-tool.html http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introd...) in a lot of ways this is an extension of the mailing address or phone number that the New Yorker has advertised (and informants have been using) since the 1920s.
loteck 13y ago
I disagree. The tools that journalists have been using to protect their sources are woefully inadequate in the digital age. The government has moved forward with surveillance techniques and is always advancing its information-gathering methods. When I ask friends who are journalists how they stay anonymous and protect their sources, the best they can do is "meet on a park bench and don't use the phone." It's high time for journalism to upgrade their toolbox for gathering information and protecting their sources in the 21st century. However technically sound this effort by the New Yorker is, it is a step in the right direction.

It's a sad day when a US based publication is leading the charge to protect its sources to ensure the vitality of the freedom of the press. I had expected this in an authoritarian regime, not here.

brown9-2 13y ago

I disagree. Sometimes maintaining that type of freedom of the press requires strong vigilance and defense on the side of the press, rather than taking it as a given.

Jun8 13y ago

In a real authoritarian regime this page would not have existed at all due to government pressure (or would have been a honeypot for government). Such regimes generally work through the double whammy of threat of action (legal or thug-based, e.g. in Russia) to the actual reporters who uncover dirt and subtler threats/coercions to their bosses, the latter of which leads to self-censorship and is much preferred. A recent example of the second approach is the suppression of news about the bombing in Reyhanli in the Turkish press.

salimmadjd 13y ago
I considered the same argument you are making before posting my comment. However, for this to have happened in USA it means we are half way there or getting there. The media is controlled by two factions now: Government through access (you don't get to come to white house if you piss us off or you wont get the interview) Large corporations and the major characters behind them. (i.e. Fox news, Viacom, etc. This is not the path to maintain an open society. We don't need thugs like less sophisticated media controlled countries , we control media in a much more elegant way. But the results are the same!
- brown9-2 13y ago
  As the blog post announcing this points out (http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introducing-strongbox-anonymous-document-sharing-tool.html http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introd...) in a lot of ways this is an extension of the mailing address or phone number that the New Yorker has advertised (and informants have been using) since the 1920s.

loteck 13y ago

I disagree. The tools that journalists have been using to protect their sources are woefully inadequate in the digital age. The government has moved forward with surveillance techniques and is always advancing its information-gathering methods. When I ask friends who are journalists how they stay anonymous and protect their sources, the best they can do is "meet on a park bench and don't use the phone." It's high time for journalism to upgrade their toolbox for gathering information and protecting their sources in the 21st century. However technically sound this effort by the New Yorker is, it is a step in the right direction.