zlacker

>>c420+(OP)
I have become jaded with most news, specially with those that are unable (refuse?) to link to the basis of their claims.

"Documents obtained by ...shared with the Guardian"

"Internal documents [...] obtained and shared with the Guardian in 2021"

The only external item I found was NYPD "Social Network Analysis Tools: Impact And Use Policy" from April 2021 which does state how they collect and use social media data.

Similarly described & linked LAPD behavior also lacks evidence.

Anyone have links to these documents?

(I do not want to do this. Why do I have to do the work of investigative journalist? I just want to be able to trust them; alas trust is built over time and broken in seconds. [insert lamenting grumbling])

edit: documents can be redacted.

>>WaitWa+mg
So you want journalists to doxx their confidential sources?

>>hef198+7i
No, they want the evidence to be confirmable.

>>vorpal+El
Evidence that most likely leads directly to the source. Especially in investigative journalism, true that a lot quick online stories are a different story.

I do understand why not all spurce material can be published, but that source material is usually strictly vetted before publication. And that is were the brand of newspapers comes in.

>>hef198+in
The Guardian has a lot of misses. Unlike the BBC, it tends to be less quality.

If they aren't willing to publish the files (though many, many sensitive documents have been published while protecting the source!) than they can use a second or third news source to validate the files. This happened with the original panama papers before many of them were publically published - 4-5 papers all vetted them in chunks.

"Trust me bro" doesn't cut it, especially not for The Guardian.