The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda. That’s why reporters usually need multiple sources and other proof to run something important.
History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,” which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.
I edited my comment above in anticipation of this truth. You're right and the difficulty with anonymously passing info is that the reporter can't verify the source's integrity very easily (not every source has access to a non-public document or other independent source of identity verification). I still believe these issues can be addressed without a reporter compromising themselves.
Maybe one bright line rule everyone could agree to is no conditions on reporting when covering an elected or high-ranking (cabinet level or heads of agencies, etc.) official. Wouldn't even cover their staff -- but anything you see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable in my opinion.
It’s admirable to reconsider as you have, but there are some serious inconsistencies in the popular ideas you’re aligning with and you may want to clarify.
The difference between whistleblowing and reporting is purely subjective and ultimately undermine the ideals of noble protections for the press that so many love to defend. Until we find consistency here, we are also protecting a privileged class of reporters and should at least consider the ramifications of delegating press responsibilities this way before settling.
Why should we be guarding the NYT reporters while at the same time banishing Snowden?
In an age of electronic media, our economy of attention is a full capacity. Freedom of expression is a tiny concern compared with power of distributions. Centralization of press responsibilities (separate discussion) make sense but we must confront the realities of the machine this creates when we put so much into protections. Many jobs carry great risk, and people choose them anyhow. Risk acceptance is a classical way of measuring one’s loyalty to the the collective good. It’s the basis for unmitigated respect to a nation’s soldiers. Our current attention economy and the desirability to be a reporter might serve a critical public good.
I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people and this sounds like one possible ethical path in that direction. It’s not an easy one, and worthy of debate. But, what we have is a disaster.
EDIT: Off the record, I work in the press. I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.
Thanks for sharing your expertise. I'm sure others value it as well.
> I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people ...
While I agree with the second phrase (and in fact you can find another comment where I already said it), I don't understand what you mean by the first and I'm very interested in your professional perspective: More protections for professional journalism? Government funding? Ending free speech for non-journalists? It's a bit ambiguous.
> I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.
Can you spell out what those standard procedures are and why they stop you? Again, very interested, and I'm sure others would be too.
Based on my limited knowledge, the primary issue is that the publication must work for customers who can pay enough to support them, which are the middle/upper-class.
> anything you see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable
It is. “Off the record” isn’t legally binding. Journalists exercise judgement between reporting a silly thing now versus saving a source's trust for a bigger reveal later. “Reportable” doesn’t mean “reported”.
>The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda.
Sure, but that must be extended to the fact that in reality also the reporter, the editor, the newspaper/TV director often have their own agenda as well.
Why are you implying that “having an agenda” is the accusation? The problem is having an unethical agenda. How is that not clear? Or, are you asserting that nobody has an ethical agenda?
You've been making a habit of posting flamewar-style comments to HN. We eventually ban accounts that do that, because they lower discussion quality and encourage worse from others. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and only post civilly and substantively from now on?
The idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
“Not morally approvable; morally bad; not ethical.”
-Wiktionary
EDIT: The accusation was that the subjects all “have an agenda”. The subjects are not the reporters, so a dictionary definition is the exactly the right amount of specificity.
History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,” which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.