How to Tell Us a Secret
nytimes.com
How to Tell Us a Secret
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#2Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those who provide the information, but at the same time, it ensures honest, and factual information is being published?
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#3Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…
That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#4Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…
Usually good anonymous tips are the sort tell the journalists where to look, who to ask, what questions to ask, etc. Allegations that there's a conspiracy to turn everyone into commies by putting fluoride in the water aren't taken seriously unless they include some way for the journalists to validate the claims (official documentation, for example).
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#5Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…
That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.
Somebody illustrious and learned once said something to the effect that “if somebody tells you it's raining outside, and somebody else tells you the sun is shining, your job as a journalist isn't to report that some people say one thing whereas others say something else, your job as a journalist is to go look out the window and report what the weather is actually doing”.
What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading.
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#6Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…
Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#7Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…
> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found.
Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputable newspaper like the New York Times, and although all newspapers are sometimes mislead by their sources, or otherwise get things wrong, when this happens at a paper like the Times, it is universally followed by a correction.
In other words, the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration, they're going to involve other experts, and they're going to ask questions of the principals.
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.
Somebody illustrious and learned once said something to the effect that “if somebody tells you it's raining outside, and somebody else tells you the sun is shining, your job as a journalist isn't to report that some people say one thing whereas others say something else, your job as a journalist is to go look out the window and report what the weather is actually doing ”. What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows rough…
I heard another version of this the other day, a great line that's apparently some newspaper's motto: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out first."
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#9 WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information.
“With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained.
Also the departure of WhatsApp founders under uncertain terms, doesn't give me much confidence with usage of that app for clandestine operations.
Perhaps folks here who are well versed with the state of the app can chime in.
Re: How to Tell Us a Secret
#10Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…
Tough problem to solve upstream, particularly in a "first-to-publish" news environment.
Better fact-checking tools in the hands of the publisher is critical here. It's ultimately on the them to decide if it passes the smell test.
I'll give publishers the benefit of the doubt that they at least attempt to corroborate anonymous tips with other sources. Perhaps some more accessible forms of anonymous expert networks with a trust/reputation system built-in can help, though the cynic in me sees how easily platforms like that can be manipulated.
Harsher consequences for publishing false news is a slippery slope. It's necessary at a certain level, but quickly runs up a slippery slope that can end up with tightly state-controlled media like in other countries.