For libel and slander cases though, telling the truth is a valid defense.
Which is neither here, nor there, as some are more likely to sue you than others.
>For libel and slander cases though, telling the truth is a valid defense.
Which is neither here, nor there, again. Not everybody wants the hassle of going through a lawsuit or the time and money costs associated, even if they have a "valid defense".
Should i hazard a guess, it would be either Zoom or Teams.
As well as, I assume, to archive a text indexable/searchable log of your conversations. I say this latter part based on multiple experiences I've had receiving clearly targeted advertising for topics I make random passing jokes or commentary about in live conversation, but which I've never once searched, click-imprinted, etc. for online. But, this is purely suspicious speculation. The live closed-captioning feature is a real thing and a thing I could absolutely see resulting in Google always sending audio streams to their backend for.
It makes some sense here on HN where people often post under their real names and want to think carefully before badmouthing a former employer, or otherwise picking a fight.
I agree that journalists have little excuse.
Except wanting anyone, ever to talk to them again about something controversial.
Bob Woodward has gotten PLENTY of high level politicians to talk to him candidly even though he's publishing what they are saying often in an unflattering light.
If someone as famous as the watergate guy can STILL get politicians to talk to him, what does a random journalist have to fear?
I mean, FFS, the gamer nexus guy got newegg to talk to him even after blasting them about ripping him off and letting them know "we are recording everything".
Journalists are acting like a single inkling of a bad word said will lock them out of access to everyone everywhere. The truth is, there are so many journalists out there that one could make a career of asking hard questions and publishing unflattering statements and the STILL would likely not be recognized by most individuals if they asked for an interview.
Woodward is absolutely one of the few exceptions, if not the only one.
He publishes on a long timescale with dozens of sources, not a short timescale with one or two.
So everyone knows the story will come out but not immediately, and everyone knows everyone talks to Bob.
But like it or not, most (not all) of the people he talks to have less to lose, because they are at or close to the apex of power in DC; there will always be jobs for them elsewhere in the USA, in a thinktank or on a board somewhere.
(It's also worth noting that Woodward's most famous source was anonymous for essentially his entire life)
In the real world outside seats of government, talking to a journalist on the record about stuff you should not often means you are the single source -- the only person who made the unflattering or damaging story possible, in a story that maybe won't wait even a week to be published.
It puts you out there on your own, gets you fired, makes it difficult to get immediately re-hired, and I suspect for an American with a family in an at-will state makes telling the truth on the record a luxury they can't afford.
Nothing about that situation has bearing on whether people first think of safely concealed sources or being publicly dragged through the mud like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden before sharing things far more important than entitled rants about customer service for entertainment-related products. My lord.
Why not finishing their research first, discussing with lawyers how not get sued, and contacting the company about it so that they can fix it or comment on it, and only then publishing the proper, responsible research that is actually useful to someone?
People can be irrationally attached to the things they use.
As a farm kid growing up, you didn't step between two guys arguing the merits of I-H and J-D farm equipment (1970s...)