zlacker

So you want journalists to doxx their confidential sources?

>>hef198+(OP)
No, they want the evidence to be confirmable.

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

>>vorpal+x3
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+65
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...

>>hef198+b5
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.