Hacker News Reader

Comment by plgonzalezrx8 | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those who provide the information, but at the same time, it ensures honest, and factual information is being published?

View on HN

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found.

Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputable newspaper like the New York Times, and although all newspapers are sometimes mislead by their sources, or otherwise get things wrong, when this happens at a paper like the Times, it is universally followed by a correction.

In other words, the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration, they're going to involve other experts, and they're going to ask questions of the principals.

Agreed. That is why this is called a confidential tip line. For a journalist, a "tip" is an indication to investigate something.

> followed by a correction.

This is not useful most of the time. I've never seen a viral correction. Damage is done.

Not OP, just curious why this is being downvoted? Seems like a legitimate argument, would rather like to see the counterargument of the downvoters.

First of all, the premise is wrong. Major corrections usually receive more prominent placement and greater exposure. Minor corrections are printed in the corrections section, with stories updated online and correction notices appended.

Second, the point is not that reputable newspapers perfectly correct their readership's understanding. The point is that reputable newspapers correct themselves. Newspapers reputations are built on that honesty, and astute readers will have an understanding of a paper's track-record of accuracy and corrections. Less astute readers will rely on those that do track such things.

I have not found this to be true.

There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?

It doesn't matter if they correct it after they've already sold the lie. The damage is done and most people won't read the correction.

After 9/11, New York Times wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. MSM just takes Bush/Obama admin + intelligence communities claims at face value. It is supposed to be their job to fact-check govt, but instead they are just a rubber stamp for govt propaganda. The only admin they have been capable of properly fact-checking is Trump admin and that's only because their corporate sponsors & donors are anti-Trump.

When the intelligence community makes a claim, media fact-checks that claim by asking the SAME intelligence community to verify.

If they aren't willing to put in the work to be trustworthy, there's no reason to give them any trust.

There are lots of things not to like about the Times, but if you report an inaccuracy to them, they will research it and correct it if needed.

I have a suspicion that the mainstream media writers purposely under-resarch their stories so they can get the story out as fast as possible & minimize liability for libel.

Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel.

So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false.

If you fact-check it, and it turns out to be false, now you know it's false. You could be liable for libel if you decide to print it.

However, if you don't fact-check it, you get to print the claim because you sincerely believed it could be true. Also, you get the advantage of getting the story out quicker, and you can always change it later if someone complains.

As it happens, the relevant case law is New York Times Co vs. Sullivan. According to that case, libel liability still applies when the information published is both untrue, and was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

In other words, a policy of publishing without investigation would not limit libel liability. If the information is false, and the publishers did not have a good-faith belief that it is true, then they might still be held liable.

[Citation needed.]

Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of them.

I did a 10 second google. Here's a couple where the NYT issued their little correction as unobtrusively as possible, which happens often, after they enjoy the click-bait traffic the erroneous story give them.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-tim...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/...

Small print corrections issued days later, are not effective in undoing the damage an erroneous blaring headline did.

Thanks for sharing the link.

I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either.

News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.

That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

Their business model is that they sell papers (or access to a website, or get ad views).

They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever).

Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.

> That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

You've never regularly read UK newspapers I take it?

I wish that was their primary purpose, a few of them never let a story get in the way of their agenda.

Absolutely. What happened to investigative journalism? Shoutouts to https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/

Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.

Why doesn't the source you cite also have agendas? IME, those who attack everyone else as having an agenda and present themselves as the antidote - that act is propaganda in itself and they the most prone to it.

> the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration

Citation needed.

Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/columbia-and-new-york-...

http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4379 [duke lacrosse reporting]

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wrong_wrong_wrong_w...

A great example of the Times and their “anonymous” sources (and lack of corroboration) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maybe.htm...

Suggesting that the Times “isn’t going to print a story..without further vetting” is based on some idealistic view of the Times, but not necessarily on a reality based on their history. Didn’t they also just print an anonymous op-ed, providing zero opportunity to challenge or verify any of the claims contained therein?

The Times is a reputable as any other news outlet, but Reuter’s they are not. They are laced with a history of subtle bias and outright dishonesty when it suits them.

I read through the top 3 links and would love to hear you elaborate more on how these are counterpoints to the assertion that the Times would not print a story not independently corroborated.

The first link regarding Jayson Blair is the clearest counterpoint, showing a Times reporter fabricating story. This is absolutely an example of the NYT failing. But the same Wikipedia article says that the NYT, on their own initiative, investigated and fired Jayson Blair in a very public manner.

> After internal investigations, The New York Times reported on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an "unprecedented"[14] 7,239-word front-page story on May 11, 2003, headlined "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception."[2] The story called the affair "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."

To me, publishing Jayson Blair's articles is a huge mistake by the Times. But the way they handle it proves that they do hold their journalistic values in high regard.

The 2nd article itself admits that what the Times published is supported by many others in the media. (Their point is that the entire media is lying.) The audio proof that the 2nd article mentions is also not included, so I don't know if I should trust it more than I trust the Times.

The 3rd link is not easy to understand for me since there isn't a lot of context.

Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.

So you're saying that no journalist would accept a tip from someone who will not identify themselves?

They may 'accept the tip' and then try to verify/track it down with other sources (and say "I've heard X, can you confirm that for me?"), but no, a reputable journalist will never publish a quote from an anonymous source with no verification.

Unless they can verify it some other way, I highly doubt any reputable journalist would publish something like that. When a journalists publishes something based on a source that wishes to stay anonymous they are putting their career and reputation on the line.

A tip is just an investigative lead. "Hooker Chemical is dumping massive amounts of toxic waste at Love Canal" would be a tip. It would then be up to an investigative reporter to investigate, and report what the investigation uncovers.

You may be thinking of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources". Those people may be quoted on a factual basis, but the reporter has an obligation to obtain the same kind of confirmation of their information as any other investigative lead.

> A tip is just an investigative lead. "Hooker Chemical is dumping massive amounts of toxic waste at Love Canal" would be a tip.

Actually, that's not a tip by the NY Times definition:

A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip.

https://www.nytimes.com/tips

As an ex journalist, you might accept it as a tip and use it as the basis for further investigation. You wouldn't publish it.

That’s the job of (real) journalists. I would imagine the vast majority of content submitted to the Times via these channels never appears in print because it doesn’t pass scrutiny and/or isn’t relevant.

Somebody illustrious and learned once said something to the effect that “if somebody tells you it's raining outside, and somebody else tells you the sun is shining, your job as a journalist isn't to report that some people say one thing whereas others say something else, your job as a journalist is to go look out the window and report what the weather is actually doing”.

What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading.

If you look at 24 hour cable news, I'm sure that's what you see. It's entertainment passed on as journalism. There's still good journalism going on if you know where to look. The New York Times, the Washington Post, for example, are incredibly informative and useful sources for news.

Neither the NYT or Washington Post questioned the Bush admin and intelligence communities claims about why the USA was going to war with Iraq even though it was public knowledge that the 9/11 attackers were all Saudis and it had nothing to do with 9/11. But the media helped them spin the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism, even though Iraq was not exporting terrorism to the West, not until after they destabilized the region by taking out Saddam.

Instead, the NYT wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's WMDs were and how he was supporting terrorism, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. Nowadays they defend themselves by saying "everyone agreed at the time". It's not true.

Mainstream media is a rubber stamp for corporate and state interests, just propaganda. They rubber stamped Bush's war's just like they rubber stamped Obamas, they will probably rubber stamp Trump's too. Yes, they also contain true information, but they are still just corporate/state propaganda.

If they aren't willing to fact-check the govt for an issue as serious as going to war, especially with all the red-flags that were out there, like the fact that Colin Powell, a year prior to holding up anthrax in congress as "proof" that Iraq had WMDs, was giving speeches a year earlier claiming there was no evidence Saddam was making WMDs. Like the fact the Bush admin certainty about WMD was far greater than the actual intel communities claims. No one fact-checked them.

Your talking point is old enough to have finished high school by now, maybe it’s time to come up with a second example?

And, by the way, the NYT fired the reporter and an editor over that mistake, wrote numerous articles on how it happened, and instituted new rules to prevent similar things happening in the future.

I heard another version of this the other day, a great line that's apparently some newspaper's motto: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out first."

There's a great story behind that, of course:

https://medium.com/@Susys/lets-change-this-journalism-motto-...

>What we have now is (mostly) talk-shows roughly passed off as genuine journalism, but really it's pretty obvious that it's the lowest common denominator kind of gossip-spreading.

And the problem is compounded in that the internet, for all of its glories, has also taught folks that their opinions/beliefs/dogma are just as valuable as actual facts.

I don't know what, how, or why. But the only two things different now to, say, the 80's in terms of bullshit journalism is its ability to reach people directly in a 'one-on-one' setting and its ability to be echoed with no challenge in online forums and the like.

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources

Those sources aren't "anonymous sources," they're more accurately called confidential sources.

You may see an story backed by no public sources. You then have to make a decision about whether you trust the publisher to have adequately checked the story using private sources.

If the newspaper gets information from a truly anonymous source (say a classified military memo), they need to verify that it's authentic before they publish. They may do that by checking as much of the memo's content as they can and calling up people in the Pentagon and asking if they've seen that particular memo. Those people may not be willing to confirm the memo publicly (because that may open them up to legal problems), but if if their identity is kept private it's less risk to them so they may be willing to confirm it.

Tough problem to solve upstream, particularly in a "first-to-publish" news environment.

Better fact-checking tools in the hands of the publisher is critical here. It's ultimately on the them to decide if it passes the smell test.

I'll give publishers the benefit of the doubt that they at least attempt to corroborate anonymous tips with other sources. Perhaps some more accessible forms of anonymous expert networks with a trust/reputation system built-in can help, though the cynic in me sees how easily platforms like that can be manipulated.

Harsher consequences for publishing false news is a slippery slope. It's necessary at a certain level, but quickly runs up a slippery slope that can end up with tightly state-controlled media like in other countries.

From the NY Times instructions on their tips page:

https://www.nytimes.com/tips

What Makes a Good Tip?

A strong news tip will have several components. Documentation or evidence is essential. Speculating or having a hunch does not rise to the level of a tip.

I would argue that people giving their names are inclined to only say certain things given the situation they are in. That would seem to outright eliminate a great deal of things that it would be good to know.

Usually good anonymous tips are the sort tell the journalists where to look, who to ask, what questions to ask, etc. Allegations that there's a conspiracy to turn everyone into commies by putting fluoride in the water aren't taken seriously unless they include some way for the journalists to validate the claims (official documentation, for example).

It's not like someone sends an anonymous text message to them and they immediately publish it. They start investigating based on that tip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com