Tech journalism’s ‘on background’ scourge

cjr.org

4 points·CaptainZapp··4 comments

The piece describes an incident where a reporter asked YouTube some questions via email and the reply included an on-background section that the reporter chose to publish in full anyway.

Immediately after telling this dick-move story, the author laments, "Silicon Valley wasn't always so hostile to reporters."

The piece's criticisms against tech have a point, but the author has a real blind spot when it comes to looking in the mirror and considering ways that the media isn't entirely blameless for the frayed relations either.

I mean, that's not a dick move tho? Going "on background" or "off the record" is not a one-way conversation. It's a negotiation with the journalist. It's not a magical invocation that binds the other party once they hear the words.

For some reason this page had overflow-y set to hidden for about 30 seconds before allowing scrolling. It was probably an ad that got blocked, but give it a moment and you can read the article.

Clearly a biased article. "Opinion" doesn't mean you can just let in all you biases.

But is there any truth to this -

> "This is a toxic arrangement. The tactic shields tech companies from accountability. It allows giants like Amazon and Tesla an opportunity to transmit their preferred message, free of risk, in the voice of a given publication. "

>"If the company later reverses course or modifies its position, the egg is on the reporter’s face, not the company’s. "

You can simply attack back, we were lied to by a representative “on background” about this case, if this is a tacit being used.

But I suspect it's in the Opinion piece authors head. Evidence? The Authors personal stories are not this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com