,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ As always, this is a good example of people misunderstanding ethics. You think that if you say "this is off the records", that the journalist is ethically obliged to comply. Not only is that wrong, the journalist is nearly obliged to do the opposite.
2/ Big corps and government regularly try to exploit the press, to twist messages in their favor. One way they do this is by trying to go "on background" or "off the recorrd", to get the journalist to repeat their spin, but without being held accountable for being the source.
3/ The most fundamental ethic of all journalism is to the "truth", and thus, to not go off-the-record/on-background unless it's truly necessary. It's not necessary in order to publish what your PR flacks say.
4/ Thus, when PR flacks give you information and claim "it's off the record", trying to twist the message, it's a journalists duty to publish who is responsible for that message, to hold them accountable.
5/ The only time a journalist has an ethical obligation to protect a source is when they've explicitly agreed to it ahead of time, and even then, they'll often say "no" and not agree to it.
6/ If you are dealing with a journalist, and believe they've agreed to it ahead of time, be careful as to what, exactly, they've agreed to, as your understanding and their understanding probably differ.
7/ A good example where we see a breakdown in anonymous sources is blaming the Baltimore ransomware on Eternalblue. That's clearly spin with an agenda that we can't challenge or hold accountable because the source of that information is protected by anonymity.
