4 ms·

That's a good question. I think it comes down to compromising credibility. Reporters have to be perceived as trustworthy to be effective, and for that they basi

That's a good question. I think it comes down to compromising credibility. Reporters have to be perceived as trustworthy to be effective, and for that they basically need to be viewed as having generally good character, or — probably more importantly — good intentions. Just taking any old information you come across and throwing it out because it brings in clicks undermines that. The answer to who's harmed, then, is reporters in general, because it's behavior that generates an aura of unsavoriness and makes people less likely to trust the whole industry. TLDR: If reporting seems like corporate espionage, people think reporters are just corporate spies.

rhizome 12y ago
I'm not sure where you're coming from with this because there's a long history of journalism based on leaks and confidential sources. It's not a matter of throwing out "any old information," since vetting sources is also a part of journalism and a reporter's reputation is indeed affected by bad stories. The repercussions you speak of simply don't exist because things like this are part of the very definition of journalism, but if you have anything that speaks to the validity of the sources in this story I'm sure we'd all like to hear them.
- Philadelphia 12y ago
  I agree, absolutely, that leaks and confidential sources are critical to journalism. It's necessary to take into account the context and the content, though. The less public value the leak has, and the more confidential the information is, the more damage it can cause, the more carefully it needs to be handled. If a leak is very confidential but has a lot of value, using it is ok; the Pentagon Papers, for example. If a leak is not particularly confidential, has some public value, using it is ok; the name of the new store that's coming to a neighborhood, for instance. The first two items I was able to find for other expressions of the line of thought are the "Clandestine methods: Principles" section at [1] and this article [2]. The Business Insider article doesn't present any reason for choosing to publish the Uber information. It doesn't even offer any interesting analysis of it. It just seems to be revealing it for the sake of revealing it. There are ways to use the data that might be justified — for instance, discussing the risks of the company's legal status being uncertain in some of it's largest markets; looking at the number of drivers it has and the net effects of that on the total number of cars on the streets; looking at general trends in growth without revealing details, if they're interesting. Simply presenting the information raw and without context isn't reporting, though; it's just sharing, and, in this case, it's sharing information that wasn't meant to be shared, so it seems sleazy. [1]http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/investigative-journalism/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/act... [2] http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/leaks.html http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/l...
  - gojomo 12y ago
    It may have been an intentional leak, so "meant to be shared" even if the "confidential & proprietary" labels say otherwise. But also, why would Uber's desire-for-secrecy be given much weight? They're not a private individual that can be embarrassed. I haven't seen anyone intimate that this info is either false or damaging to them in any way. (And if, hypothetically, it were a leak that was true and changes outsiders' behavior enough to harm Uber, that might itself make the case for its release. Uber is a big force affecting a lot of employees and markets – a prominent 'public figure'. Its many counterparties amongst the public want and arguably deserve the best obtainable info about it.) The sense that "it seems sleazy" thus looks to me like a case of over-anthropomorphizing Uber itself, and thus granting it empathy which it is not due. Even if we think it a useful legal fiction to grant companies all the legal rights of persons, that doesn't mean they deserve all human courtesies, too. (Of course, if the leak were primarily about actual people, and especially if it was using dubious gossip to damage them, then a stricter standard would apply.)
    - philwelch 12y ago
      There's a fairness argument to be made; Uber is a business and has to make deals in order to carry out its business, be they investments, procurement (they buy a lot of smartphones), commercial real estate, etc. If Uber's internal finances are leaked but the internal finances of their current or potential future business partners aren't, that harms their negotiating position. Journalists shouldn't be stepping in and giving Apple or some local landlord a better negotiation position with Uber by showing them Uber's cards, so to speak. It violates the principle of impartiality.
      - rhizome 12y ago
        In that case/context, why would a journalist be obligated to consider Uber's business needs at all?
        philwelch 12y ago
        Because journalists shouldn't give some businesses advantages in negotiating position over other businesses. If Uber is negotiating with Apple to buy thousands of iPhones, and the press leaks Uber's internal financial data but not Apple's, the press has given Apple an unfair advantage.

rhizome 12y ago

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this because there's a long history of journalism based on leaks and confidential sources. It's not a matter of throwing out "any old information," since vetting sources is also a part of journalism and a reporter's reputation is indeed affected by bad stories. The repercussions you speak of simply don't exist because things like this are part of the very definition of journalism, but if you have anything that speaks to the validity of the sources in this story I'm sure we'd all like to hear them.

Philadelphia 12y ago
I agree, absolutely, that leaks and confidential sources are critical to journalism. It's necessary to take into account the context and the content, though. The less public value the leak has, and the more confidential the information is, the more damage it can cause, the more carefully it needs to be handled. If a leak is very confidential but has a lot of value, using it is ok; the Pentagon Papers, for example. If a leak is not particularly confidential, has some public value, using it is ok; the name of the new store that's coming to a neighborhood, for instance. The first two items I was able to find for other expressions of the line of thought are the "Clandestine methods: Principles" section at [1] and this article [2]. The Business Insider article doesn't present any reason for choosing to publish the Uber information. It doesn't even offer any interesting analysis of it. It just seems to be revealing it for the sake of revealing it. There are ways to use the data that might be justified — for instance, discussing the risks of the company's legal status being uncertain in some of it's largest markets; looking at the number of drivers it has and the net effects of that on the total number of cars on the streets; looking at general trends in growth without revealing details, if they're interesting. Simply presenting the information raw and without context isn't reporting, though; it's just sharing, and, in this case, it's sharing information that wasn't meant to be shared, so it seems sleazy. [1]http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/investigative-journalism/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/act... [2] http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/leaks.html http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/l...
- gojomo 12y ago
  It may have been an intentional leak, so "meant to be shared" even if the "confidential & proprietary" labels say otherwise. But also, why would Uber's desire-for-secrecy be given much weight? They're not a private individual that can be embarrassed. I haven't seen anyone intimate that this info is either false or damaging to them in any way. (And if, hypothetically, it were a leak that was true and changes outsiders' behavior enough to harm Uber, that might itself make the case for its release. Uber is a big force affecting a lot of employees and markets – a prominent 'public figure'. Its many counterparties amongst the public want and arguably deserve the best obtainable info about it.) The sense that "it seems sleazy" thus looks to me like a case of over-anthropomorphizing Uber itself, and thus granting it empathy which it is not due. Even if we think it a useful legal fiction to grant companies all the legal rights of persons, that doesn't mean they deserve all human courtesies, too. (Of course, if the leak were primarily about actual people, and especially if it was using dubious gossip to damage them, then a stricter standard would apply.)
  - philwelch 12y ago
    There's a fairness argument to be made; Uber is a business and has to make deals in order to carry out its business, be they investments, procurement (they buy a lot of smartphones), commercial real estate, etc. If Uber's internal finances are leaked but the internal finances of their current or potential future business partners aren't, that harms their negotiating position. Journalists shouldn't be stepping in and giving Apple or some local landlord a better negotiation position with Uber by showing them Uber's cards, so to speak. It violates the principle of impartiality.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      In that case/context, why would a journalist be obligated to consider Uber's business needs at all?
      - philwelch 12y ago
        Because journalists shouldn't give some businesses advantages in negotiating position over other businesses. If Uber is negotiating with Apple to buy thousands of iPhones, and the press leaks Uber's internal financial data but not Apple's, the press has given Apple an unfair advantage.