3 ms·
We were protecting a source. End of story. The majority of the time tipsters do not want to be named when there's a possibility they could be retaliated against
by jkincaid 17y ago
We were protecting a source. End of story. The majority of the time tipsters do not want to be named when there's a possibility they could be retaliated against (as is the case on platforms like Twitter, iPhone, etc).
- eli 17y agoWhat a cop out. This wasn't just a "source" who gave you a tip. The source was the story. Without identifying the source, you end up with a crappy one-sided post. And without even bothering to critically examine the source's claim (that they were being hassled specifically for using the word "tweet") you end up with a post that isn't even accurate and that you've now had to add two update update to bring it back in line with reality. End of story. Having seen the site, I think it's obvious to everyone that using the word "tweet" was the least of its IP transgressions. I'm no big defended of "old media," but there's a reason you don't see newspaper stories mysteriously missing the "Who?" of the story.
- gojomo 17y agoA third party has now identified the company in question. Presumably, if reporting the company name would have been enough to burn the source, the source is now burnt. Can't TC now update the story in place with the missing details, to correct the misimpressions given by the initial reporting?
- tptacek 17y agoI love it when TechCrunch plays the journalism card. When they want to run a one-sided story with no attribution, they're Woodward and Bernstein. When they're getting called on conflicts of interest, they're Arrington's blog.