Category Archives: sources

Bad Science: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

Posted on by
Reply
Ben Goldacre: "Why don’t journalists link to primary sources? Whether it’s a press release, an academic journal article, a formal report, or perhaps (if everyone’s feeling brave) the full transcript of an interview, the primary source contains more information for interested readers, it shows your working, and it allows people to check whether what you wrote was true. Perhaps linking to primary sources would just be too embarrassing. ... It’s also an interesting difference between different forms of media: most bloggers have no institutional credibility, and so they must build it, by linking transparently, and allowing you to easily double check their work."

New York Times: What Would Ellsberg Do With Pentagon Papers Today?

Posted on by
1
"[If] someone today had the Pentagon Papers, or the modern equivalent, would he still go to the press, as Daniel Ellsberg did nearly 40 years ago and wait for the documents to be analyzed and published? Or would that person simply post them online immediately? [Daniel] Ellsberg knows his answer. 'As of today, I wouldn’t have waited that long,' he said in an interview last week. 'I would have gotten a scanner and put them on the Internet.'"

Nieman Journalism Lab: Iceland aims to become an offshore haven for journalists and leakers

Posted on by
Reply
"On Tuesday, the Icelandic parliament is expected to introduce a measure aimed at making the country an international center for investigative journalism publishing, by passing the strongest combination of source protection, freedom of speech, and libel-tourism prevention laws in the world. ... Could global news organizations with a home office in Reykjavík soon be as common as Delaware corporations or Cayman Islands assets?"

Your Right To Know: When Brooke met Brooker

Posted on by
Reply
Heather Brooke on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe: "I’m talking here about the way journalists grant public officials anonymity for no good reason. By the very definition of their role, official spokespeople have absolutely no reason to be anonymous yet one of the more dubious practices of the British press is the way reporters collude with officials by granting anonymity."

Shane Richmond: Naming Nightjack: The Times was right legally but wrong morally

Posted on by
Reply
Shane Richmond: "I can see the sense in both The Times's argument and Mr Justice Eady's. The legal case is clear but I'm less comfortable with the moral case. Nightjack was trying to shed light on his work and bring the public a view of policing that could only be done anonymously. Shouldn't newspapers be protecting people like him? Certainly, The Times would have protected him had he been their source. But being out on his own meant that he was fair game."