As a journalist I find it really disturbing that the WSJ has this clause.
The #2 rule in journalism (after tell the truth) is protect your sources -- if you promise not to reveal your source, you don't reveal your source. It's not, "well, I promise not to reveal you -- unless I get a subpoena, then you're SOL." And yes, that means going to jail if you have to. Which is why as a journalist you have to be very careful who you give it to.
I realize that by the nature of what they've posted they're not promising it, so now there's two standards -- if you submit through the site, you have some protection, but to a journalist on their staff, then, you have the (assumed) full protection. But now there's that separate level of protection -- we'll give you anonymity, depending on some sort of arbitrary process if submitted through this site. And most people don't understand what a professional reporter will (or should) do for their source -- if they hand papers over in one or two cases, many people will assume that all journalists will just cave,and that will hurt everyone.
I do understand why they don't want to give blanket full protection for things unknown/unseen, but unless they're willing to do that, I really don't think a journalistic entity should do this kind of site at all.
The #2 rule in journalism (after tell the truth) is protect your sources -- if you promise not to reveal your source, you don't reveal your source. It's not, "well, I promise not to reveal you -- unless I get a subpoena, then you're SOL." And yes, that means going to jail if you have to. Which is why as a journalist you have to be very careful who you give it to.
I realize that by the nature of what they've posted they're not promising it, so now there's two standards -- if you submit through the site, you have some protection, but to a journalist on their staff, then, you have the (assumed) full protection. But now there's that separate level of protection -- we'll give you anonymity, depending on some sort of arbitrary process if submitted through this site. And most people don't understand what a professional reporter will (or should) do for their source -- if they hand papers over in one or two cases, many people will assume that all journalists will just cave,and that will hurt everyone.
I do understand why they don't want to give blanket full protection for things unknown/unseen, but unless they're willing to do that, I really don't think a journalistic entity should do this kind of site at all.