journos, sources, and leaks
Jul. 26th, 2023 11:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
onymoussharing excerpts from resources on ethics in journalism which would be of use to the social media true crime genre, if applied.
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
SPJ Code of Ethics
Revised September 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. CT at SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville, Tenn.
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS
Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.
The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.
Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
the situation with leaked documents, (or as in the idaho case, video) is slightly different because it was posted online anonymously (or pseudonymously), and then immediately made use of by pretty much everyone, before anyone started thinking of trying to find out where it came from. and that is one of the issues. vetting of sources takes place before using them to create content.
https://www.spj.org/leak.asp
this is a page from the same org's web site about the use of leaks. it addresses how valuable leaks are to journalism and to society, and some types of people who leak. then, it mentions the advent of secure technology that has been developed over the past several years, to enable leakers to submit their info to 'reputable' news organisations, and gives a list of some of the orgs that have the tech in place.
btw, i could not disagree more strongly with list of orgs there, because tech is only one piece of it. if journos lack ethics, a source is still going to be in jeopardy no matter what tech is in place, as several sources for the intercept, in particular, have found out. but the point is the modern use of secure technology for journos and sources, and who sources consider trustworthy journos.
i do not accept a premise that, in 2023, anyone well into adulthood in the usa (anywhere, actually) has not heard of wikileaks, julian assange, or edward snowden. even minimal attention paid to news coming from them or news about them - from whatever source - means you have some awareness of these issues. ironically, i have heard snowden in particular discussed by people in the true crime genre, covering the idaho (or idaho4) case, when issues of technological surveillance data has come up.
we might feel the internet or social media is a more casual environment, in which journalism can take place but is not the reason the environment exists, when contrasted with an actual newsroom or the scenario of contacting a famous, respected, investigative journalist who is very likely to be published via a well known news outlet and to appear on tv as well, after writing up a good story. we might feel it is a bit over the top to expect people online (i.e., sources) who have info they want to share to be using a secure drop box for submissions to random youtubers.
however, journalism can and does occur in the online social media space. at times, good journalism is done in these spaces. (& content creators from social media - and occasionally sources - have been interviewed on mainstream media tv news.) i have heard countless yt channel owners discuss, over the years, the surprising amount of info (& offers to be interviewed) sent to them about stories in the news they have mentioned in their videos. it's not always just from the general public, but often from people directly involved in the news stories who want to get info out to the public. there really has been a cultural shift, and people are more favorably inclined towards the internet and each other than towards mainstream media. and it seems to me, the yt creators who take up these offers, or use such info, are more inclined towards journalism; and the yt creators who are uncomfortable with taking on so much responsibility and getting closer to being directly involved, and who would prefer to just keep sharing their opinions as an outside observer, turn the offers down and do not use the material.
so, an important question that could be of great value to people viewing true crime video content on social media, who may one day find themselves in a position to be a source for a news story, is: do you really trust this online person with the information? and with your anonymity (should you need it)? why? and should you? is the person you're thinking of contacting truly trustworthy?
more on this in another post.
i think it can be inferred that whoever was trying to get a (or a few) yt content creator(s) to take the leaked footage directly (at first) might have actually admired them and hoped they'd do a good job with gleaning info from them. (and was subsequently extremely disappointed.)
i also see another strong possibility though.
& if you don't know what i'm referring to, please see this previous entry for context.
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
SPJ Code of Ethics
Revised September 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. CT at SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville, Tenn.
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS
Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.
The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.
Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
the situation with leaked documents, (or as in the idaho case, video) is slightly different because it was posted online anonymously (or pseudonymously), and then immediately made use of by pretty much everyone, before anyone started thinking of trying to find out where it came from. and that is one of the issues. vetting of sources takes place before using them to create content.
https://www.spj.org/leak.asp
this is a page from the same org's web site about the use of leaks. it addresses how valuable leaks are to journalism and to society, and some types of people who leak. then, it mentions the advent of secure technology that has been developed over the past several years, to enable leakers to submit their info to 'reputable' news organisations, and gives a list of some of the orgs that have the tech in place.
btw, i could not disagree more strongly with list of orgs there, because tech is only one piece of it. if journos lack ethics, a source is still going to be in jeopardy no matter what tech is in place, as several sources for the intercept, in particular, have found out. but the point is the modern use of secure technology for journos and sources, and who sources consider trustworthy journos.
i do not accept a premise that, in 2023, anyone well into adulthood in the usa (anywhere, actually) has not heard of wikileaks, julian assange, or edward snowden. even minimal attention paid to news coming from them or news about them - from whatever source - means you have some awareness of these issues. ironically, i have heard snowden in particular discussed by people in the true crime genre, covering the idaho (or idaho4) case, when issues of technological surveillance data has come up.
we might feel the internet or social media is a more casual environment, in which journalism can take place but is not the reason the environment exists, when contrasted with an actual newsroom or the scenario of contacting a famous, respected, investigative journalist who is very likely to be published via a well known news outlet and to appear on tv as well, after writing up a good story. we might feel it is a bit over the top to expect people online (i.e., sources) who have info they want to share to be using a secure drop box for submissions to random youtubers.
however, journalism can and does occur in the online social media space. at times, good journalism is done in these spaces. (& content creators from social media - and occasionally sources - have been interviewed on mainstream media tv news.) i have heard countless yt channel owners discuss, over the years, the surprising amount of info (& offers to be interviewed) sent to them about stories in the news they have mentioned in their videos. it's not always just from the general public, but often from people directly involved in the news stories who want to get info out to the public. there really has been a cultural shift, and people are more favorably inclined towards the internet and each other than towards mainstream media. and it seems to me, the yt creators who take up these offers, or use such info, are more inclined towards journalism; and the yt creators who are uncomfortable with taking on so much responsibility and getting closer to being directly involved, and who would prefer to just keep sharing their opinions as an outside observer, turn the offers down and do not use the material.
so, an important question that could be of great value to people viewing true crime video content on social media, who may one day find themselves in a position to be a source for a news story, is: do you really trust this online person with the information? and with your anonymity (should you need it)? why? and should you? is the person you're thinking of contacting truly trustworthy?
more on this in another post.
i think it can be inferred that whoever was trying to get a (or a few) yt content creator(s) to take the leaked footage directly (at first) might have actually admired them and hoped they'd do a good job with gleaning info from them. (and was subsequently extremely disappointed.)
i also see another strong possibility though.
& if you don't know what i'm referring to, please see this previous entry for context.
