Ethical organizations do not traffic in stolen property

I am with Jeff Bercovici, Apple has grounds for suing Gizmodo.

It seems that one of Apple's engineers accidentally left his new iPhone at a restaurant and the person who found it rather than than return it decided to sell it to Gizmodo. This is not the relationship of a news organization and a source, it is the relationship of a fence and a thief.

We have seen this over and over again. News organizations would seem to think themselves above the law. Truly shameful.

Edit -
It seems that the Superior Court of San Mateo shares my view that news organizations are not above the law.

Scott Adams comments as only he can.

Uh-oh, San Mateo law enforcement may have overplayed its hand.

Oh my goodness, it appears law enforcement might have had a conflict of interest.

The anonymice go after Rep. Jane Harman

We love smearing people. Not only is it fun, it is a great way to distract the public and avoid accountability.



CQ had an article alleging a prid pro quo between Rep. Harman and AIPAC.

Two former senior national security officials, one who has read a transcript of the wiretap and a second who was briefed on its contents, said Harman agreed during the conversation to “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference.” Their accounts were confirmed by a third source with knowledge of the wiretapped conversation and subsequent events.

First of all, why are the contents of this transcript being leaked? What public interest is being served? If this is part of a legitimate investigation (that is, authorized by a warrant), then it has been compromised. If there is no warrant, than this is the politicization of the NSA. Harman seems to think it might be the latter.

Ron Kampeas at Capitol J has a good run down of all the problems with this article.

Notice how these disasters invariably involve anonymous sources? How long before one of your clients gets smeared in such a manner?

Never be an anonymous source.

Edit - Why the anonymice might have gone after Harman.

The anonymice and TechCrunch

Who cares about facts? We're never going to be held responsible for what we say.

Last.fm denies data handover to RIAA

Last.fm has hit out at an uncorroborated report that alleged the music streaming website passed user data over to the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA).

The CBS-owned outfit responded angrily to a report posted late Friday by TechCrunch that cited an unsourced rumour, which claimed Last.fm handed over a “giant dump of user data to track down people who are scrobbling unreleased tracks" to the RIAA.

Ever notice how these fiascos invariably involve anonymous sources?

Edit -
Andy Beal on blogging as a form of rumor control.

David Cay Johnston, a hero for our time

David Cay Johnston is a reporter for the Columbian Journalism Review who insisted that White House communications personnel speak on the record. Bravo! Well done!

The practice of anonymous sources survives only because editors and reporters permit it to survive.

It also survives because our profession is foolish enough to think that we can manipulate it in our favor. Our clients will never be on the receiving end of smears and rumor mongering. Oh no. Certainly not. Perish the thought.

It is a evil practice, let us put an end to it.

How the anonymice chewed up the credibility of Seymour Hersh

Yum, the credibility of investigative reporters is delicious!


For years Seymour Hersh has been pushing the allegation that the Bush administration was about to go to war with Iran. It did not happen. It is plausible that Hersh’s sources were acting as whistle blowers and that the reason that we have not attacked Iran is because of the push back the came as a result of his reporting. It is equally plausible that his sources set him up to look like a fool. Just one of many reasons reporters and editors should avoid anonymous sources and readers should view them with extreme skepticism.

One less anonymouse in the people's government

What do you mean my services are no longer required?

Days After Leak About Obama’s Aunt, Immigration Chief Julie Myers Announces Resignation

Fellow flacks, if you don't want your clients smeared in the press, then please do your part in ending the evil practice of anonymous sources.

Anonymice strike again

You have no law we need take notice of.




Associated Press: FBI investigates ACORN for voter fraud

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election.

The Justice Department officials knew that they were breaking the law by leaking this to the Associated Press, and the reporter knew that she was collaborating in a crime by running the story. What's next? Are we going to blow a CIA case officer's cover? Oh right ...

Truer words were never spoken

PR Rule #1: People who are telling the truth about themselves do not insist on being ‘off the record’

Lynn Espinoza rules!

You are NEVER Off the Record. Not only that, you shouldn't even try to go off the record.

Three cheers for William Dizard III

No source, no story.

The Anonymice Protection Act redux

We traffic in rumor, innuendo, and character assassination. That is why we prefer to be off the record.




Media Coalition Letter Urges Shield Law Approval

NEW YORK A group of 50 media companies and organizations, as varied as News Corporation and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, have penned a letter urging Congress to take up a pair of federal shield law bills and enact them as soon as possible.

Almost every scandal in journalism in my lifetime has involved the abuse of anonymous sources. Either reporters are simply making stuff up, or they are serving as a laundromat for false allegations.

The use of anonymous sources makes journalists power brokers, a role that is very sweet to them, if ruinous to their profession. This is not the free flow of information, this is the protection of the news organization as gate keeper of information.

What would really promote the free flow of information would be to enact tough laws protecting whistle blowers.

Scandal! Obama will only speak on the record!

Team Obama Is Courting Everybody But the Press

Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists, having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa.

If Obama cleans all the anonymice out of the White House and federal government it will be a very good thing.

Edit -

Jim Horton takes a different view. For my part I think our industry cannot take too hard a line against the use of anonymous sources.

Why we don't need the anonymice protection act

Patrick Fitzgerald: Bill Would Wreak Havoc on a System That Isn't Broken

Let's start from the common premise that a robust and free press and fair and effective law enforcement are both vital to our democracy. Since the Supreme Court ruled 35 years ago that reporters are obligated to comply with grand jury subpoenas, there has been no shortage of whistle-blowers -- from Watergate to Abu Ghraib. And the Justice Department operates under rigorous regulations restricting the issuance of subpoenas to journalists. These regulations, which require balancing the competing public interests in law enforcement and the flow of information to the media, have yielded only a trickle of subpoenas.

Against this background, a compelling case has not been made for jettisoning the legal framework that has guided this process for the past 35 years.

A threshold question lawmakers should ask is whether reporters will obey the law if it is enacted. They should ask because the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press calls for a shield law while urging journalists to defy the law when a court upholds a subpoena for source information. Any shield bill should require that a person seeking its protection first provide the subpoenaed information under seal to the court, to be released only if the court orders the information disclosed.

If congress were serious about the free flow of information they would pass meaningful whistle blower protection.

Engadget, Apple, and the anonymice

Blog Blunder: Nothing New

One of my favorite tech blogs fell flat on its face Wednesday. Engadget posted a story yesterday claiming the expected June launch of the iPhone would be delayed until October and the Leopard October debut would be postponed until January. Engadget's credited its source as coming from an internal Apple e-mail.

The e-mail tip turned out to be false. But before anyone figured this out Apple's stock tumbled 3 percent losing $4 billion in value by the end of the trading day.

If your source doesn’t want their name on a story, why would you want yours? How many times are reporters, working in whatever medium, going to let themselves get burned by anonymous sources before they learn to reject them?

The anonymice on the campaign trail

How professional political operatives secretly control the news you read about the 2008 campaign. Hint: It involves the Drudge Report.

As news events go, the "Bomb Iran" episode was surprisingly typical for the 2008 campaign. It resulted from an anonymous leak, most likely from a rival campaign, rather than the shoe-leather reporting of independent journalists. It was, in the lingo of the campaign trail, an "oppo dump," apparently compiled with the help of one of the vast, secretive propaganda machines housed in each of the major campaigns. In recent months, such invisible releases of information have often dominated the news cycle and have become ubiquitous for reporters covering the candidates. Official e-mails from campaigns regularly arrive in reporter in boxes with subject lines like "n/a," or "not for attribution." Unsigned white papers are delivered with damning facts about opponents' fundraising reports. Information is passed along by senior campaign officials in hushed tones on the telephone, only after the reporter has sworn never to reveal the source.

When are we going to put a halt to this pernicious practice? These aren't whistle blowers coming forward with information concerning serious misconduct. These are trash-talking professional hacks.

First of all, just because you put n/a in the subject in no way obligates a journalist to honor your nasty little game. Don't be part of this. Speak openly or don't speak at all.

“Senior Administration Official” Tells All

Reasonable Minds

Why does the government do this? I’m not sure. Maybe in this particular case, the Vice President felt it would not be Vice Presidential to respond to this particular criticism personally. (Though I must say, the “senior administration official” quoted above goes on to make what seem to me to be newsworthy remarks about his recent meetings with Karzai and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

But it is even harder for me to understand why the press willingly goes along with the whole ruse.

Our profession could put an end to this evil practice if we would make the collective decision to do so. I hope we will.