Comments on: Screenwipe on anonymous sourcing

By: ronin b

ronin b — Tue, 15 May 2012 20:34:00 +0000

Um, except that she didn’t claim that they had done so. As it says right there in the post you linked to.

And, Jeez, you made the same sneery little remark 6 months ago:

http://dev.boingboing.net/2011/10/18/the-revolution-will-be-digitised-how-cablegate-facebook-google-and-the-regulation-will-shape-the-future.html#comment-339086569

Get out, much?

By: ocker3

ocker3 — Tue, 15 May 2012 01:08:00 +0000

If only they would

By: humanresource

humanresource — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:26:00 +0000

We don’t want to hear your opinion; you’re a paedophile with links to Al Qaeda (sources say).

By: scotchmi_st

scotchmi_st — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:00:00 +0000

Isn’t that sort of the point of having journalists though? To separate the truth from the lies? Anonymous sourcing helps to protect whistleblowers that would find it hard to have a career if it were not for their anonymity. Surely it is far more important, as mentioned as a caveat in the 19th paragraph of that piece, for the press not to just print everything they’re told?

By: taras

taras — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:55:00 +0000

Good video. Reminds me of one incident where a respected journalist claimed LulzSec had illegally accessed the UK Census database, based on one anonymous source (a text file containing the claims), despite the Office for National Statistics denying it.

Of course, it turned out to be a non-story, fueled by exactly the kind of speculative, scaremongering reports Brooke discusses in the video.

Can’t recall that journalist’s name now. Anyone remember?

edit: oh yeah, here it is: http://heatherbrooke.org/2011/whos-laughing-now-lulzsec-claims-census-leak/

By: dasanjos

dasanjos — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:17:00 +0000

The government has monopoly on violence and now wants monopoly on anonymity…