This article was really disappointing. It doesn't answer the only question I really want to read about: what happens when people break these rules?
And for this to have teeth, you need to (a) have relationships with multiple reporters and (b) provide recurring value. The first makes it possible to close off a reporter who misbehaves. The latter gives everyone an incentive to keep that from happening.
Journalist-source relationships are political. They aren't governed by laws, but tradeoffs and customs.
Unless you’re in the press every day, this hasn’t been—in my experience—worth it. Better to pick the relationships and delegate managing the messaging yourself.
Whistleblower laws deal with power and retaliation against a discloser by organizational superiors and (in some instances and locations) the state. They are not about "journalists" (which isn't a special category) but about protecting the release of information in the public interest, and apply for everyone. They're not for recourse against reporting or revelation by independent parties though (in fact that'd be directly against the point of them).
So basically what it comes down to is honor, reputation and future dynamics. It's about soft power human relations, with everything that comes with that. Obviously a reporter that develops a reputation for betraying sources will be unlikely to ever again get any sources, and the same for a larger news organization. Given the competitive nature of reporting, a news organization whose well of tips and sources dried up would suffer heavily for it, if not collapse entirely. Additionally, it's rare that critical off the record/background/deep background information is an end by itself. Rather, it's a jumping off point for investigation and corroboration by public sources and those willing to go on the record, and that is then what serves as the real core of the story. It is often the case that something critical is hidden more in the vast sea of noise and other information rather then through any particularly deep level of protection, so being pointed in the right direction and having investigators start asking questions and digging is more then enough.
It's a complex dance of motivations on each side, but over time the equilibrium has generally ended up somewhat around what this article discusses in terms of ethics. Not just pure self-interest but even idealistic goals considered long term and simple morality/empathy tend to drive a respect towards keeping promises. However even then it's never 100% certain, and it's not just the occasional genuine ethical breach or scumbag either. It's conceivable even the most scrupulous reporter could come across something so important and time sensitive that they'd decide burning their career and other lives would be a price worth paying and then just report it regardless. Conversely sources by definition are also always taking some risk by not keeping something to themselves, and will have their own sets of motivations and calculations about whether it's worth it or not.
or
The source will confirm it, but they’ll also let everyone know that you broke the rule, so as a journalist, again not in your interest to publish.
If you are Trump, then sure, go ahead, why not.
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/102542508844570214...
These Twitter threads, like most of them, don't make any sense to me.
I can't vouch too much for the veracity of everything in the video but there's nothing I know of that she got wrong.
EDIT: Just saw that Wu has actually responded to the video in the comments too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b...
Once the article came out, Naomi tried to get them to remove that section of the article and they didn't respond to any of her emails. She then went on to "dox" one of the reporters (though I have heard that the information she posted was available just by searching his name online).
Sarah Jeong basically attempted to counter this criticism of Vice by saying that she has asked around, and Naomi's concerns are ill-founded (Sarah used to work for Vice, so you could argue that she isn't exactly impartial on this topic). And obviously most media outlets focused on Naomi's doxxing (which to be clear -- is something that shouldn't have been ignored) rather than the original situation with Vice. This evolved into a pretty big argument, and Naomi appears to have come to the conclusion that almost all western media is unethical.
Later Vice apparently asked Patreon to close Naomi's account (as a response to her doxxing one of their employees), and Patreon followed their instructions -- cutting Naomi off from one of her sources of income for her videos. It's apparently very hard to get donations into China (crypto-currencies don't help because you cannot convert them into real money inside China easily).
Hopefully I've explained the situation without letting my position poison the summary.
The truth is that these people took one look at Naomi, assumed she was a ditz, a slut, or some kind of animal, and figured they could do whatever they wanted to her. Because, hey, it ain't a crime to slaughter a sow.
They forget too easily that treating people like animals, means becoming an animal.
What a way to lose your humanity.
> In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career
I think that the main concern is that they refer to it specifically as being a foreign man masterminding her career -- not just a general conspiracy theory.
While I understand them wanting to say it's wrong (which is what they are saying), according to Naomi[2] the idea of a "foreign puppet-master" is a dog-whistle in China (which, from what I've heard, has an incredibly protectionist culture). The idea of a figurehead of Shenzhen's maker culture being controlled by a foreigner would apparently not end well for Naomi.
[1]: I'm not going to link it here, just Google "Naomi Wu vice". [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b... -- I don't like this particular YouTuber, but Naomi responds in the comments.
They might have removed it when she asked, but I don't see how they broke the original agreement.
Also, do I understand that Jeong's only involvement with this was that she commented on the situation after the fact? Or did she have something to do with the original article?
She didn't have anything to do with the original article. She came to the defense of her former colleagues (she used to work for Vice) and claimed that Naomi was manipulating her fanbase into believing that she was in danger when she really wasn't[1].
[1]: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/981575986322989056
* Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
We got a softball article about a topic from a publisher who has recently violated the very spirit of that topic.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy and we should know about it, not hide from it.
Also, to be fair, the guidelines say:
>If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.