![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
onymousthe first article excerpted below is very good. i recommend reading it in full. there's also a definition of investigative journalism at the beginning of it. to me, what goes on in social media doesn't merit the term - especially since hearing a few of them declare (i.e., lie) recently that they aren't trying to solve or figure out the cases - but make up your own mind. it's still my opinion that a lot if not all of these principles should be applied by people active in that genre.
basically, everything said here (in both articles) is being contravened by those in the youtube true crime genre the last couple of weeks, in their mania to out the source of leaked cctv footage in the idaho (or idaho4) case. the steps to do with vetting material and sources seemingly weren't even thought about until after everyone made use of the footage for their own content. they seem eager to cause legal problems for the leaker, but may end up causing them for themselves and each other. (a level of thoughtlessness and stupidity - or underhandedness - flagrantly displayed by another recent newcomer to the genre & the idaho case on yt which was discussed in frank terms by some, but not enough. there was also another incident where one channel attempted to doxx a sort of background source (i.e., someone adjacent to the case). most people were appalled by that, yet the broader lessons from these two incidents apparently were not learned. the difference between an instinctive sense of right and wrong vs. purposefully learning about the ethics that apply to the situations you're placing yourself in?)
for more context, see this previous entry.
https://cpijournalism.org/investigative-source-protection/
The Center for Public Interest Journalism: Created to improve the quantity and quality of public interest news and information in the Greater Philadelphia area.
How Do Journalists Protect Their Sources And Maintain Confidentiality In Investigative Reporting?
By
Delbert
January 3, 2023
C. Overview of the Legal Implications of Not Protecting Sources
Without proper protection of sources, journalists can find themselves in hot water with the law. This is because when a source has provided information to a journalist, the journalist has a duty of confidentiality to protect the source’s identity.
If a journalist discloses the identity of a source without their authorization or consent, the source may have legal recourse.
In the United States, journalists have certain protections from revealing their sources, and the courts often recognize the importance of protecting confidential sources.
For example, the Supreme Court has held that journalists have a First Amendment right to protect the identity of their sources in certain circumstances. However, these protections are not absolute, and journalists still need to be mindful of their legal obligations.
In addition to potential legal liability, failing to protect the identity of sources can also have significant reputational consequences for journalists.
Sources may be reluctant to provide information if they do not trust that the journalist will protect their identity.
Therefore, it is important for journalists to be aware of their legal obligations and take the necessary steps to protect their sources.
and
Journalists have several methods for protecting their sources and maintaining confidentiality in investigative reporting. The most important tool is the use of pseudonyms.
The use of a third party can also protect a source’s identity. This is done by having a trusted individual act as an intermediary between the journalist and the source. This third party can be a lawyer, a public relations professional, or even a friend of the source.*
*this makes me think that not only may the source have viewed youtubers as capable journalists, who would do better than what they are doing with the material, but that the source and/or intermediary or intermediaries may actually be from mainstream media. (or an independent journalist, but someone with more journalistic experience than the youtubers involved.) i think they may have been trying to create a scenario with the leaks where if they published the source documents (i.e., videos) by putting them online, and made other, social media 'journalists' aware of their existence, the latter would just file their stories, so to speak. keeping layers between the actual original source and the yt content creators reporting on and analyzing the videos.
seems like they were wise to build layers and pseudonyms into this, too, in this case.
and
It is also important to assure the source that their identity and the information they provide will be kept confidential. Reassure the source that you understand the importance of privacy and that you will do everything you can to protect it. Provide them with examples of how you have kept sources confidential in the past.
and
You should also be careful to avoid linking your personal emails and social media accounts to your investigative reporting, as this could put your sources at risk.**
**this would have been wise as well. i'm not sure if the person or people involved in leaking the footage took this step, but i'm pretty sure the youtube true crime crowd did not. everyone involved should have. if you're not going to use a secure dropbox, at least have some sense of opsec...
and
5. Be Discrete: Finally, journalists should always strive to be discrete when it comes to protecting their sources and maintaining confidentiality.
This includes avoiding discussing sensitive information in public and avoiding sharing any information about sources with anyone who is not involved in the investigation.
By following these tips, journalists can ensure that they are protecting their sources and maintaining confidentiality in investigative reporting. This is essential for providing accurate, unbiased information to the public.***
***this would not include what's going on, on youtube, now. people are feverishly showing texts, emails, facebook screen names, etc in their zealotry to out this person. it's shameful. and bizarre. and i wonder if it isn't the result of running out of steam on ever figuring out the idaho case. in frustration, and with great resentment, they've turned their investigative skills on a source of direct info instead.
and
B. Avoiding Unnecessary Contact
As an experienced journalist, I cannot stress enough the importance of avoiding unnecessary contact when protecting sources and maintaining confidentiality in investigative reporting.
Unnecessary contact with sources can put them at risk of exposure, and can also lead to potential legal issues.
the points i've excerpted from the article below are relevant because the youtube crowd don't actually know who the source is, and seem to a little too open to suggestions. they don't seem to care who it is or anything about repercussions they might face. and the rest of the quotes below speak to the need to look into things before</> using material. if you're not comfortable, don't use it.
https://cpijournalism.org/anonymous-sources-ethics/
What Are The Ethics Of Using Anonymous Sources And How Do Journalists Decide When To Use Them?
By
Delbert
January 7, 2023
It is important to consider the potential for retaliation or retribution, and to assess the risk of doing further harm to the source.
In these cases, it is essential to ask the source if they feel comfortable being identified. If the source does not feel comfortable, then the journalist should respect their wishes and use anonymous sources.
Moreover, it is important to ensure that the source is aware of the potential consequences of their information being revealed, and to ensure that the source understands the risks involved.
A journalist should never pressure a source into using their name if they are not comfortable doing so.
Finally, it is important to ensure that the source’s identity is protected to the fullest extent possible. This means that the journalist should take extra steps to ensure that their name and whereabouts are not revealed.
This can include using encryption, using pseudonyms, or taking other steps to ensure that the source’s identity is not revealed.
and
When the source is a whistleblower, a journalist needs to take extra care to ensure that the person’s identity is protected. Whistleblowers often have a great deal of sensitive information that could put their lives in danger if their identity is revealed.
It is the journalist’s responsibility to protect the whistleblower and to make sure that their identity is not revealed in the course of reporting.
When it comes to protecting the identity of a whistleblower, there are several steps that a journalist can take. The first is to make sure that the source does not reveal any information that could be used to identify them.
This includes not providing any identifying characteristics such as age, gender, race, or any other personal information. The source should also avoid using any names that could be connected to them.
The journalist should also use technology to ensure the safety of the source. This includes using encryption when communicating with the source and using secure servers to store information.
The journalist should also create a secure account for the whistleblower to use when sending information. This account should be anonymous and should not contain any identifying information.
and
C. When The Source is a Government Official
When a journalist is considering using an anonymous government source, the ethical standards should be even higher. Government officials are in positions of public trust and have a responsibility to uphold the law.
This means that journalists need to be especially cautious when considering using an anonymous source from within the government.
When a journalist is considering using an anonymous government source, they should first attempt to determine the motivations of the source.
Are they providing information because it is in the public interest, or are they motivated by self-interest? If the source is motivated by self-interest, the journalist may want to consider other sources.
The journalist should also consider the implications of using an anonymous government source.
Will the story be damaging to the government or to its reputation? Is the information the source is providing true and accurate? Does the source have direct knowledge of the story or is the information second or third-hand? All of these factors should be taken into consideration before deciding to use an anonymous government source.
When a journalist does decide to use an anonymous government source, they should ensure that the source is not exposed to any risk. The journalist should take steps to protect the identity of the source and ensure that their identity is not revealed.
The journalist should also consider the possibility of using a pseudonym or code name to protect the source, so that they can remain anonymous while still providing valuable information.
In short, the use of anonymous sources from the government should be undertaken with great care and caution.
and
The journalist should also take steps to protect the source’s identity. This could include not revealing the source’s name, gender, race, occupation, or any other identifying information, as well as not sharing any details about the source’s location, family members, or other details that could help identify the source.
and
When it comes to using anonymous sources, the first and foremost step that a journalist must take is to establish the credibility of the source. Anonymous sources can be powerful tools in investigative journalism, but they must be used cautiously and carefully.
The best way to do this is to verify the identity of the source as much as possible. This can involve asking for identification or talking to other people who may know the source. If the source is not willing to provide identifiable information, then the journalist must be extremely careful in verifying the information.
In addition, the journalist should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest that the source may have. If the source is a current or former employee of a company, they should be asked if they are acting in their own interests or in the company’s interests.
If the source is a political figure, their connections and loyalties should be explored before the journalist decides to use the information they provide.
Finally, it is important to assess the source’s motivations for providing the information. If the source is looking to gain something from the information, then the journalist must consider whether or not the story is worth the potential risk of using the information.
A reliable source will always be willing to provide accurate information without expecting anything in return.
By taking these steps, a journalist can ensure that any anonymous source they use is credible and trustworthy. This will ensure that the story is accurate and reliable and that the journalist is not taking an unnecessary risk by using the information provided by the source.
and
D. Ensuring the Source is Not Misleading
When using anonymous sources, it is important for journalists to take extra steps to ensure the source is not misleading.
Here are some tips to help ensure the source is not providing false information:
1. Verify the Source: Before using any anonymous source, it is important to verify the source is legitimate. This can be done by consulting other journalists and sources, asking questions to the source, and making sure the source understands the implications of their statements.
2. Ask More Questions: Journalists should always ask questions to the source to ensure they are providing accurate information. This includes asking follow-up questions to clarify any of the source’s statements, as well as asking for evidence to back up any claims.
3. Verify the Facts: To ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the source, journalists should independently verify the facts. This can be done by consulting other sources and doing additional research.
By taking these steps, journalists can help ensure the source is not providing misleading information. This is important to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the story being reported.
basically, everything said here (in both articles) is being contravened by those in the youtube true crime genre the last couple of weeks, in their mania to out the source of leaked cctv footage in the idaho (or idaho4) case. the steps to do with vetting material and sources seemingly weren't even thought about until after everyone made use of the footage for their own content. they seem eager to cause legal problems for the leaker, but may end up causing them for themselves and each other. (a level of thoughtlessness and stupidity - or underhandedness - flagrantly displayed by another recent newcomer to the genre & the idaho case on yt which was discussed in frank terms by some, but not enough. there was also another incident where one channel attempted to doxx a sort of background source (i.e., someone adjacent to the case). most people were appalled by that, yet the broader lessons from these two incidents apparently were not learned. the difference between an instinctive sense of right and wrong vs. purposefully learning about the ethics that apply to the situations you're placing yourself in?)
for more context, see this previous entry.
https://cpijournalism.org/investigative-source-protection/
The Center for Public Interest Journalism: Created to improve the quantity and quality of public interest news and information in the Greater Philadelphia area.
How Do Journalists Protect Their Sources And Maintain Confidentiality In Investigative Reporting?
By
Delbert
January 3, 2023
C. Overview of the Legal Implications of Not Protecting Sources
Without proper protection of sources, journalists can find themselves in hot water with the law. This is because when a source has provided information to a journalist, the journalist has a duty of confidentiality to protect the source’s identity.
If a journalist discloses the identity of a source without their authorization or consent, the source may have legal recourse.
In the United States, journalists have certain protections from revealing their sources, and the courts often recognize the importance of protecting confidential sources.
For example, the Supreme Court has held that journalists have a First Amendment right to protect the identity of their sources in certain circumstances. However, these protections are not absolute, and journalists still need to be mindful of their legal obligations.
In addition to potential legal liability, failing to protect the identity of sources can also have significant reputational consequences for journalists.
Sources may be reluctant to provide information if they do not trust that the journalist will protect their identity.
Therefore, it is important for journalists to be aware of their legal obligations and take the necessary steps to protect their sources.
and
Journalists have several methods for protecting their sources and maintaining confidentiality in investigative reporting. The most important tool is the use of pseudonyms.
The use of a third party can also protect a source’s identity. This is done by having a trusted individual act as an intermediary between the journalist and the source. This third party can be a lawyer, a public relations professional, or even a friend of the source.*
*this makes me think that not only may the source have viewed youtubers as capable journalists, who would do better than what they are doing with the material, but that the source and/or intermediary or intermediaries may actually be from mainstream media. (or an independent journalist, but someone with more journalistic experience than the youtubers involved.) i think they may have been trying to create a scenario with the leaks where if they published the source documents (i.e., videos) by putting them online, and made other, social media 'journalists' aware of their existence, the latter would just file their stories, so to speak. keeping layers between the actual original source and the yt content creators reporting on and analyzing the videos.
seems like they were wise to build layers and pseudonyms into this, too, in this case.
and
It is also important to assure the source that their identity and the information they provide will be kept confidential. Reassure the source that you understand the importance of privacy and that you will do everything you can to protect it. Provide them with examples of how you have kept sources confidential in the past.
and
You should also be careful to avoid linking your personal emails and social media accounts to your investigative reporting, as this could put your sources at risk.**
**this would have been wise as well. i'm not sure if the person or people involved in leaking the footage took this step, but i'm pretty sure the youtube true crime crowd did not. everyone involved should have. if you're not going to use a secure dropbox, at least have some sense of opsec...
and
5. Be Discrete: Finally, journalists should always strive to be discrete when it comes to protecting their sources and maintaining confidentiality.
This includes avoiding discussing sensitive information in public and avoiding sharing any information about sources with anyone who is not involved in the investigation.
By following these tips, journalists can ensure that they are protecting their sources and maintaining confidentiality in investigative reporting. This is essential for providing accurate, unbiased information to the public.***
***this would not include what's going on, on youtube, now. people are feverishly showing texts, emails, facebook screen names, etc in their zealotry to out this person. it's shameful. and bizarre. and i wonder if it isn't the result of running out of steam on ever figuring out the idaho case. in frustration, and with great resentment, they've turned their investigative skills on a source of direct info instead.
and
B. Avoiding Unnecessary Contact
As an experienced journalist, I cannot stress enough the importance of avoiding unnecessary contact when protecting sources and maintaining confidentiality in investigative reporting.
Unnecessary contact with sources can put them at risk of exposure, and can also lead to potential legal issues.
the points i've excerpted from the article below are relevant because the youtube crowd don't actually know who the source is, and seem to a little too open to suggestions. they don't seem to care who it is or anything about repercussions they might face. and the rest of the quotes below speak to the need to look into things before</> using material. if you're not comfortable, don't use it.
https://cpijournalism.org/anonymous-sources-ethics/
What Are The Ethics Of Using Anonymous Sources And How Do Journalists Decide When To Use Them?
By
Delbert
January 7, 2023
It is important to consider the potential for retaliation or retribution, and to assess the risk of doing further harm to the source.
In these cases, it is essential to ask the source if they feel comfortable being identified. If the source does not feel comfortable, then the journalist should respect their wishes and use anonymous sources.
Moreover, it is important to ensure that the source is aware of the potential consequences of their information being revealed, and to ensure that the source understands the risks involved.
A journalist should never pressure a source into using their name if they are not comfortable doing so.
Finally, it is important to ensure that the source’s identity is protected to the fullest extent possible. This means that the journalist should take extra steps to ensure that their name and whereabouts are not revealed.
This can include using encryption, using pseudonyms, or taking other steps to ensure that the source’s identity is not revealed.
and
When the source is a whistleblower, a journalist needs to take extra care to ensure that the person’s identity is protected. Whistleblowers often have a great deal of sensitive information that could put their lives in danger if their identity is revealed.
It is the journalist’s responsibility to protect the whistleblower and to make sure that their identity is not revealed in the course of reporting.
When it comes to protecting the identity of a whistleblower, there are several steps that a journalist can take. The first is to make sure that the source does not reveal any information that could be used to identify them.
This includes not providing any identifying characteristics such as age, gender, race, or any other personal information. The source should also avoid using any names that could be connected to them.
The journalist should also use technology to ensure the safety of the source. This includes using encryption when communicating with the source and using secure servers to store information.
The journalist should also create a secure account for the whistleblower to use when sending information. This account should be anonymous and should not contain any identifying information.
and
C. When The Source is a Government Official
When a journalist is considering using an anonymous government source, the ethical standards should be even higher. Government officials are in positions of public trust and have a responsibility to uphold the law.
This means that journalists need to be especially cautious when considering using an anonymous source from within the government.
When a journalist is considering using an anonymous government source, they should first attempt to determine the motivations of the source.
Are they providing information because it is in the public interest, or are they motivated by self-interest? If the source is motivated by self-interest, the journalist may want to consider other sources.
The journalist should also consider the implications of using an anonymous government source.
Will the story be damaging to the government or to its reputation? Is the information the source is providing true and accurate? Does the source have direct knowledge of the story or is the information second or third-hand? All of these factors should be taken into consideration before deciding to use an anonymous government source.
When a journalist does decide to use an anonymous government source, they should ensure that the source is not exposed to any risk. The journalist should take steps to protect the identity of the source and ensure that their identity is not revealed.
The journalist should also consider the possibility of using a pseudonym or code name to protect the source, so that they can remain anonymous while still providing valuable information.
In short, the use of anonymous sources from the government should be undertaken with great care and caution.
and
The journalist should also take steps to protect the source’s identity. This could include not revealing the source’s name, gender, race, occupation, or any other identifying information, as well as not sharing any details about the source’s location, family members, or other details that could help identify the source.
and
When it comes to using anonymous sources, the first and foremost step that a journalist must take is to establish the credibility of the source. Anonymous sources can be powerful tools in investigative journalism, but they must be used cautiously and carefully.
The best way to do this is to verify the identity of the source as much as possible. This can involve asking for identification or talking to other people who may know the source. If the source is not willing to provide identifiable information, then the journalist must be extremely careful in verifying the information.
In addition, the journalist should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest that the source may have. If the source is a current or former employee of a company, they should be asked if they are acting in their own interests or in the company’s interests.
If the source is a political figure, their connections and loyalties should be explored before the journalist decides to use the information they provide.
Finally, it is important to assess the source’s motivations for providing the information. If the source is looking to gain something from the information, then the journalist must consider whether or not the story is worth the potential risk of using the information.
A reliable source will always be willing to provide accurate information without expecting anything in return.
By taking these steps, a journalist can ensure that any anonymous source they use is credible and trustworthy. This will ensure that the story is accurate and reliable and that the journalist is not taking an unnecessary risk by using the information provided by the source.
and
D. Ensuring the Source is Not Misleading
When using anonymous sources, it is important for journalists to take extra steps to ensure the source is not misleading.
Here are some tips to help ensure the source is not providing false information:
1. Verify the Source: Before using any anonymous source, it is important to verify the source is legitimate. This can be done by consulting other journalists and sources, asking questions to the source, and making sure the source understands the implications of their statements.
2. Ask More Questions: Journalists should always ask questions to the source to ensure they are providing accurate information. This includes asking follow-up questions to clarify any of the source’s statements, as well as asking for evidence to back up any claims.
3. Verify the Facts: To ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the source, journalists should independently verify the facts. This can be done by consulting other sources and doing additional research.
By taking these steps, journalists can help ensure the source is not providing misleading information. This is important to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the story being reported.
