zlacker

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+(OP)
Sometimes not all documents can be shared publicly if they contain sensitive information, so it's balanced out by sharing it with a trusted third party that reports on it. I understand the frustration when the report is dealing with public documents or research.

Other reporters will probably end up getting access to these documents and should be able to confirm the claims, presumably.

>>WaitWa+(OP)
So you want journalists to doxx their confidential sources?

>>hef198+L1
No, they want the evidence to be confirmable.

>>hef198+L1
Assuming not, I would like to read those documents myself. Haven't you seen a news story where the interpretation of the original source documentation is misleading, incomplete, or even worse incorrect. Happens.All.The.Time.

>>hef198+L1
Confidential sources are not credible. They usually have some ulterior motive and often don't tell the truth.

>>vorpal+i5
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.

>>pclmul+R6
Strong statement. Counter example, rather famous one, was Deep Throat during Watergate, and there arw countless of others.

I rather the see the problem you mention with all the named ones, read pundits and people being interviewed on record...

>>WaitWa+(OP)
They linked to the original story which has a link to the documents showing some of Voyager's features including the "active persona" or fake profiles. The user guide also has some of the other details they mention about mapping out friendships.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/J9...

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/J9...

>>hef198+W6
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.