3 ms·

Clearly what Whisper was doing was newsworthy, but at the same time I can understand why other journalists would want to debate the issue since it could impact

Clearly what Whisper was doing was newsworthy, but at the same time I can understand why other journalists would want to debate the issue since it could impact one of their profession's building blocks ( on-the-record v.s. off-the-record distinctions). The ethics around exceptions for similar tools such as attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient privilege are subjects for professional debate but what sets journalism apart is the number of people impacted by the scope of their decisions. Would a majority of lawyers feel compelled to alert the authorities in Whisper's case? Only if they were committing fraud. Lawyers necessarily are privy to an incredible amount of malfeasance, and no matter how troubled this knowledge might make them, their function depends on their silence. Would a majority of journalists would feel this story was damaging enough to the public that they had an obligation to publish it? Probably. Should we feel bad for the public personas who are being taken to task for expressing an opinion that ended up on the wrong side of the issue? To some degree, yes. While these avatars did seek out the relative fame that now shames them, their mistaken logic forces the projection of humanity that twitter and blogs represent to consider both sides, and pause.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Protecting your source and keeping stuff off the record only counts when your source is passing on information about a story, not when your source is the story. edit - for example, if a journalist is investigating a crime and you offer to give them information as long as it stays off the record and they agree, but then you tell them you committed the crime they are trying to investigate, they have no obligation whatsoever to keep what you said to them off the record.
- zaroth 12y ago
  No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that. In this case, however, I don't think anyone has claimed that Guardian reporters were off the record. What makes this an interesting case study in journalism ethics is that they weren't off the record, but whether you can ethically act in your capacity as a journalist in the middle of strategic business negotiations. The two are opposing interests, so to the extent I think I'm in a business meeting with The Guardian Company I'm probably also not thinking I'm the lead in their next story. To turn it around a bit more, would it be OK for Guardian to go into Whisper under false pretenses, knowing they have no interest in a partnership, but in order to gather facts for a story? Surely they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting, but likewise they shouldn't be surprised if that blows back on them the next time they want to form a strategic partnership with someone.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    "No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that." Of course there is, for instance if someone was threatening to harm you or others, it really wouldn't matter if you had agreed to keep things off the record. There is a difference between professional discretion and complicity. edit - you described the tactics they possibly used and the potential strategic blowback, but ethically you answered your question for yourself already when you conceded that they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting. They are a newspaper.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Protecting your source and keeping stuff off the record only counts when your source is passing on information about a story, not when your source is the story. edit - for example, if a journalist is investigating a crime and you offer to give them information as long as it stays off the record and they agree, but then you tell them you committed the crime they are trying to investigate, they have no obligation whatsoever to keep what you said to them off the record.

zaroth 12y ago
No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that. In this case, however, I don't think anyone has claimed that Guardian reporters were off the record. What makes this an interesting case study in journalism ethics is that they weren't off the record, but whether you can ethically act in your capacity as a journalist in the middle of strategic business negotiations. The two are opposing interests, so to the extent I think I'm in a business meeting with The Guardian Company I'm probably also not thinking I'm the lead in their next story. To turn it around a bit more, would it be OK for Guardian to go into Whisper under false pretenses, knowing they have no interest in a partnership, but in order to gather facts for a story? Surely they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting, but likewise they shouldn't be surprised if that blows back on them the next time they want to form a strategic partnership with someone.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  "No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that." Of course there is, for instance if someone was threatening to harm you or others, it really wouldn't matter if you had agreed to keep things off the record. There is a difference between professional discretion and complicity. edit - you described the tactics they possibly used and the potential strategic blowback, but ethically you answered your question for yourself already when you conceded that they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting. They are a newspaper.