4 ms·
A multi-journalist dump + impressive documents + ambitious journalists + at their home addresses = highly likely publication without getting you sent to Gitmo.
by confluence 13y ago
A multi-journalist dump + impressive documents + ambitious journalists + at their home addresses = highly likely publication without getting you sent to Gitmo. Make sure journalists are already on side with you though - aka people that have already argued against whatever cause you wish to damage.
However, if the documents are uniquely identifying and of incredible importance then you will want to go public, and you will want to go loud; have your face plastered everywhere, documents in every conceivable location, send them to thousands of journalists via email, scream your identity to the roof tops, don't go to ground, go to press conferences, and leave the country if at all possible before you do go loud.
- sitkack 13y agoToo much work. Watch homeland and drink amazing wine on your 100K+ salary. Tearfully wish the country wasn't descending into the cauldron ...
- eli 13y agoI think that's both unfair and inaccurate. You don't want someone to publish a story based a single anonymous source and unverified documents. That's how bogus stories about Benghazi emails or George W Bush's military record get made.
- btilly 13y agoI am positive that you have the facts about George W. Bush's military record wrong. The real story there is that all of the pertinent facts, with evidence, appeared in the BBC. Greg Palast was responsible for a lot of it. When CBS wanted to report on the story, they were given all of that, then went and did their own digging. In the process of digging they were given a perfect memo that they ran with without authenticating properly. The memo turned out to be too good to be true, and was a forgery. The result is that everyone was left believing that the whole thing was based on a forgery. But it wasn't. All of the key facts were uncovered earlier by the BBC and the planted forgery was merely a clever way to discredit the story. After Dan Rather painfully took a public fall over it, the issue became radioactive for all US media organizations. See http://www.gregpalast.com/dan-crashes-bush-flies-high/ http://www.gregpalast.com/dan-crashes-bush-flies-high/ for Greg Palast's view on what happened to Dan Rather.
- eli 13y agoI don't care about George W Bush's military record and I don't think it changes my point.
- btilly 13y agoI do not disagree with your point, but your example undermined it. It is therefore an example that you should avoid in the future. When I find out that I've had the facts on an important issue wrong, my response is to say, "Thank you," because I learned something. shrug
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]