January 28, 2005
'Tribune' Prints Item On Advance Leak Of City Club Report
And It's A Bloody, God Awful Mess
It's ironic that on the day that the City Club of Portland hosts a forum on ethics in print journalism that the Portland Tribune publishes a sloppy item (scroll down) on the fact that Portland Communique published City Club's report about the Portland Development Commission one day in advance of its release.
We've already provided some advance warning of the potential mischaracterizations and miscues that might show up in this piece, so before we do the full deconstruction, what follows is the item in question, taken from (of all places) the paper's gossip column.
More exciting than Brad and Jen ...
The City Club of Portland's report on the inner workings of the Portland Development Commission apparently incited so much buzz that computer crackers infiltrated the club's Web site on Jan. 14 -- a day before the report's release.
It showed up Thursday morning on Portland Communique, www.communique.portland.or.us/.
The City Club's research team officially announced the report, which was critical of the redevelopment agency's spinoff, Portland Family of Funds, on Jan. 14. More than 900 people have since tapped into the report, said research director Wade Fickler, the first to mention that hackers had hit their site.
"Our security is not what it should be," said Wendy Radmacher-Willis, executive director of the City Club. "I think we will have to improve the security of the Web site or make sure we don't get ahead of ourselves."
City Club board member Chris Smith spotted the highly anticipated report -- the club's first study of the PDC since a 1971 report called for the development commission's dismantling -- on another Web site.
Portland Communique Editor Christopher Frankonis wouldn't reveal where he got it, but said he was "anticipating" when the report was going to be published.
Let's start with that last part first, because it grossly misrepresents what we said to Kristina Brenneman in the telephone conversation we had with her. What we said to her was not that we were anticipating when the report would be published, but that we and many other people considered the report to be highly anticipated.
There's a difference, because the way Brenneman wrote the above suggests that we were somehow sitting around trying to guess when the report would become available. We knew what everyone else knew: The report would be made available by the City Club on January 14.
Now let's get to the hacking business. For one thing, the item says that "computer crackers infiltrated" the City Club website, and then immediately mentions us -- an obvious implication that we are somehow involved with, or in fact are, the alleged crackers mentioned. For another thing, the article says that City Club research director Wade Fickler was "the first to mention that hackers had hit their site".
As for the first, perhaps Brenneman in her research for the story managed to miss the statement we made in our previous entry on this situation.
We categorically deny engaging in any criminal activity, nor do we have any knowledge of any criminal activity.
Note that this doesn't make it into her little column. But the second portion of what the item says about hacking baffles us the most, because it specifically cites Wade Fickler. As mentioned in our original item on this, Tim Krause, City Club's communications coordinator, had told us that Fickler was "unaware of anything the Tribune was planning" -- which leaves us to wonder which among all of these people is telling us the truth and which ones aren't.
It's made all the more perplexing and confusing by a comment posted to this site by City Club's executive director, Wendy Radmacher-Willis: "When the Tribune reporter called me to ask about it, she used the expression 'hack.' I told her that was not the word I would use."
So while Radmacher-Willis heard the word "hack" from Brenneman, Brenneman says she heard it first from Fickler, who via Krause told me he had no idea what the Tribune was doing.
Huh?
Brenneman might also find some other useful points of reference in Radmacher-Willis' comment here, such as this: "The report was there, waiting to go live. We just didn't think that anyone would be so eager to get it as to go beyond the face of the website."
That's a very revealing comment, because it suggests how the report might have been obtained prior to its official release. And the method her comment suggests is neither hacking nor cracking. If the "report was there, waiting to go live" and to get to it someone went "beyond the face of the website" we're fairly confident that we can explain what that means.
It likely means that the directory in which the report had been uploaded wasn't protected in any way. Let us offer an example. We sometimes include links to documents that we upload to the Portland Communique server, and place them in a subdirectory so they are all collected more or less in one place.
If you were to take the URL to one of those documents, chop off the filename, and place the remaining URL into your browser, you'd end up looking at a directory listing.
We suspect that "the report was there, waiting to go live" and "beyond the face of the website" are descriptions of this very thing. In other words: Prior to the official release of the report, it likely was sitting in an open directory such as the one above. If this is the case, anyone who might have downloaded it in advance of its release was engaged neither in cracking or hacking or anything even remotely resembling it.
For what its worth, you'll note that none of that was difficult to explain, and to anyone with a decent amount of technical knowledge it was easy to piece together based upon Radmacher-Willis' comments. Yet apparently Brenneman did no find it worthwhile to speak to anyone of a technical inclination who might be able to explain what is cracking and what isn't.
Not only is this item intimating that we were involved in, had direct knowledge of, or took advantage of some sort of criminal act -- an act which under scrutiny, and if we are correct about what it is, turns out not to be criminal after all -- but what it says about who said what and when they said it is inconsistent with what various City Club people have told us.
Either someone, somewhere, is fibbing, or this gossip column article is itself such hackery that its useless as a data point for us in constructing a picture of reality.
Perhaps the Tribune should have sent Brenneman to today's City Club forum on ethics in print journalism. Or, perhaps the panelists at that forum should take a look at examples such as the column we've been deconstructing if they want to be a little less confused as to why people don't trust journalists very much any more.
Comments (48)
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
Brenneman might also find some other useful points of reference in Radmacher-Willis' coment here, such as this: "The report was there, waiting to go live. We just didn't think that anyone would be so eager to get it as to go beyond the face of the website."
This is easily resolved by answering one simple question. The question is a yes or no question. Did you or did you not 'go beyond the face of the website' to access the report?
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
Hypothetically, suppose I said that I didn't? That would inherently mean that someone on the inside gave it to me. Now, I have no idea whether or not the City Club would care, but suppose this involved some organization or entity who did care, and would then proceed to go on a witch-hunt for the source?
Bear with me here, because this is important.
At some future date, supposed I get ahold of something else either in advance, or something that's not "supposed" to be public. If I answered the "where did you get it" question in this instance, there would be an expectation that I should answer it in any other future instance.
That's why I'm under no ethical obligation to reveal either sources or methods, regardless of whether the answer is "yes" or "no" -- and that's why the question in fact is not merely a "yes or no question".
ron on 28 Jan 2005
Cases related to deep linking and trespass make for interesting reading.
Getting a one day jump on public announcement here is about as useful as getting a one day jump on the cooperative report about the Florida election report.
Were you bitter about not being a part of the news collective? Will they (others) be more or less likely to let you participate in some future collective issue? Team work sometimes has its value. You lacked tack, and that is what made news here.
It sounds clear that you burnt a bridge.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
A few definitons to ponder:
Many hackers consider the definition of hacker in the jargon file (4.2.0) maintained by Eric S. Raymond to be as close as possible to the true definition of hacker.
[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]
1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
4. A person who is good at programming quickly.
5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
Re: Bridges. The only bridge I conceviably could have burned was being considered press by City Club. As of this morning, at least, that has not happened.
Re: Hacking. The more expansive definitions of the term are entirely correct, and I avoided them mainly in order to maintain focus. And at any rate, when the press uses the word "hacking", the public hears "computer criminal".
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
At some future date, supposed I get ahold of something else either in advance, or something that's not "supposed" to be public. If I answered the "where did you get it" question in this instance, there would be an expectation that I should answer it in any other future instance.
First of all -- I am not trying to give you grief -- I am trying to assist you in clearing your name. I am not asking you to reveal your source. I am however asking if the source was a process rather than an individual. I believe that clearing up that one question would still allow you to protect your source.
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
And I explained why I see no distinction between method-as-source and person-as-source. Each reader is free to accept the explanation or not, as they see fit.
myrln on 28 Jan 2005
In truth, Trib "gossipers" make no real point of anything. Like any insipid columnists aping the NYPost, they merely throw out words and names and make it seem they're on the "inside." These folks are in fact "nowhere."
Similarly, City Club spokesfolks are simply blaming others for their own lack of "security(?)". If you don't want a damned report out then: 1) lock it tightly in a box so NOBODY sees it until you want it seen, and 2) if it does get out prematurely, look within for leaks, i.e. take responsibility on yourself for your own failures at securing what, in the final analysis, didn't seem to need all the secrecy in the first place.
In other words, don't act like the Bush administration.
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
Or for Ron's comment, since it seems to essentially ask for the motivation behind my post about the report, I should say it was nothing quite so bizarre or twisted as he suggests.
I post entries here on things that I find interesting and compelling, as I come across them. I find the discussion about PDC interesting and compelling, as do other people, so I posted what I had when I had it.
It's really that simple. It had nothing to do with bitterness (or, for that matter, strut and swagger). It simply had to do with interest.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
So you are protecting your source by not stating one way or another whether the source is either a method or an individual.
That raises, dont you think, a greater question of how questionable activity could be utilized to obtain time-sensitive information and then be kept hidden or secret in the "I'm protecting my source" argument? If I were you Id be more concerned about the scenario that begs the question of how ethical standards are used to justify unethical behavior. (not saying that you are unethical -- just a hypothetical argument to counter the one you posed)
Chris Smith on 28 Jan 2005
Speaking as one member of City Club's Board of Governors (and not trying to speak for anyone else), I don't think we are trying to put any 'blame' on b!X. There was certainly internal consternation that the report got out early - we try to orchestrate these things so that all the stakeholders are treated fairly - and that consternation was reflected in at least one post before the organization as a whole grasped what had happened on our web site.
I congratulate b!X for being astute and on the ball.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
I congratulate b!X for being astute and on the ball.
As do I. Having said that, this does raise a rather timely opportunity to discuss a number of scenarious regarding standards, issues and ethics in journalism. Especially as they may pertain to bloggers that address such topics or writing on their sites.
I would like to see b!X maintain his reputation as a credible reporter and raise what I do here with the firm belief that he is ethical in his endeavors.
Randy Leonard on 28 Jan 2005
Just be glad Vera isn't still the Mayor.
She just might have ordered an investigation as to the source of the leak.
doretta on 28 Jan 2005
Please, if the City Club put the report up on a public website but just didn't overtly link to it, as seems to be implied by what they have said, it was hardly unethical for someone to have downloaded it or for b!X to have published it on his site.
When they put the thing on the website in a freely accessible form they distributed it to the public, whether or not they announced it was there. To their credit, they seem to recognize it was their goof and not blame biX for it. Why anyone (other than sensationalist media, that is) would imply otherwise is beyond me.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
She just might have ordered an investigation as to the source of the leak.
b!X is under no obligation to reveal his source. It's the fear that such an investigation occur that makes him wary. I'm not convinced that an investigation such as the one feared even could occur on any solid grounds given the lack of security on the site even if he were to make a statement regarding the source.
A simple confirmation or denial of this one element regarding a source (even though its not necessary) would resolve the whole issue and clear his good name.
While I find it noble that b!X is taking the stance he is in protecting the source based on the hypothetical 'investigation' scenario -- I find it to be an unnecessary risk he takes that only serves to muddy his good reputation.
...but it makes for good hyothetical discussion regarding journalism.
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
b!X is under no obligation to reveal his source. It's the fear that such an investigation occur that makes him wary. I'm not convinced that an investigation such as the one feared even could occur on any solid grounds given the lack of security on the site even if he were to make a statement regarding the source.
You're misconstruing what I argued. What I asked was that people imagine that this were a situation where the organization in question was something other than the City Club, some entity that might go apeshit at information being released early. In such a situation, any statement regarding the method or person through which the information was obtained woul provide that organization fuel for such an apeshit witch-hunt.
Because the revelation of methods or sources could lead to something like that in some future situation, it's important to establish the precedent now that I will not answer questions regarding methods or sources.
It's not my job, as I construe it, to worry about whether or not some people consider my name in need of clearing. It's my job, as I construe it, to have a clear set of guidelines and stick to them, regardless of what people may or may not say about me personally because of them.
So while the principle I keep repeating here may not seem important in the specifics of the current circumstances, it's the principle, as I construe it, that's important.
Randy Leonard on 28 Jan 2005
I was just providing some much needed "tongue in cheek" perspective on this.
Vera did in fact order an investigation last year as to the source of a leak to Willamette Week of a tax statement by a Bureau of License employee (she was praying it was me).
The investigation included late night snooping by the Police Bureau, some heavy handed investigative tactics, and, well, you know.
My reaction then was much the same as it is now to this; Not Much.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
So while the principle I keep repeating here may not seem important in the specifics of the current circumstances, it's the principle, as I construe it, that's important.
Ok, so you have the principles of a reformed Daniel Ellsberg and choose to deliver it with unwavering conviction and consistency. Fine. But it's not the government you're exposing and an end to war on the line. I say this to illustrate that each scenario is different -- and each will raise a separate set of questions and risks. There are times when the noble effort is worth it -- and then there are times like this.
Then again -- being labled a hacker isnt that bad (check definitions in comment #4) -- but computer cracker ? -- That's just insulting.
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
But it's not the government you're exposing and an end to war on the line. I say this to illustrate that each scenario is different -- and each will raise a separate set of questions and risks. There are times when the noble effort is worth it -- and then there are times like this.
First, it's not a matter of nobility, it's a matter of standards. And for me, if I'm not willing to stand by what I've contrued to be a core principle for myself in this situation where the stakes are entirely negligible, then why should anyone trust that I'd stand by the principle should I ever be in a situation where the stakes actually matter?
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
Incidentally, I just noticed another basic error in the article. The day before the report was officially released was January 13, not January 14.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
Why?
In one scenario -- if you believe that the method-as-source as you illustrated it -- is legal and inconsequential -- you could stand by it and defend it with the same conviction you've voiced here. Bloggers everywhere would be grateful and unite.
In the other scenario -- simply revealing that you didnt obtain it in scenario one fashion, you still havent risked revealing your source by stating you didnt obtain the info that way. (theres too many others that obtained it that way and couldve spread it around for anyone to go on a witch hunt in This scenario)
Either way, its a win-win situation. If you had the structure of a typical news room all of this would be inconsequential as some head hauncho editor would be privy to the source -- and your stance would be without risk to your reputation. they'd vouch for you and youd be fine.
You dont care about your reputation outside of the consistency of standards though -- and I think its silly not to clear your name when theres no risk. We differ in opinion -- it's not the first time and Im sure it wont be the last...
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
You're still missing the point. The principle, for me, is I won't discuss methods and sources.
What you're arguing is that I should discuss my methods or sources in order to somehow protect myself. I refuse to subscribe to that notion.
You're also apparently not grasping my above hypothetical. If this were a situation with actual stakes of some kind, saying "no, that's not how I got it" would provide information to the organization or entity in question which would be useful to them in trying to track down the source. In that sort of high-stakes matter, I would refuse to answer what you call a simple "yes or no" question.
Turning it around in the other direction, let's say, hypothetically, that I did access some sort of information by myself and there was no human source who provided it to me. Admitting to that would inherently communicate that there was a human source, and that conceivable could spark a hunt for who it was.
It doesn't matter whether or not that's the situation here, or if I got the report on my own. What matters is establshing the clear precedent that no matter what the circumstances, methods and sources are not anyone's business but mine.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
I grasp the hypothetical situation, I just dont think it applies here.
I grok and respect the principle too, but I have to admit, setting that kind of precedent works swell in the conventional news room with checks and balances -- which a party of One doesnt make.
I think you risk your good name. Unnecessarily so -- due to the nature of reality as opposed to some hypothetical. I understand that you say it doesnt matter -- that what matters is setting the precedent.
I understand.
I just dont find it absolutely 'necessary'.
The One True b!X on 28 Jan 2005
Principles mean nothing if you ditch them to save your own ass.
allehseya on 28 Jan 2005
While I cant argue with that statement, my advise isnt that you disregard your principles.
You stand on principle when its virtue is called upon to rise to the occassion. This is no such occassion.
In this reality you dont, in my opinion, risk anyones ass (or your principles) by telling the truth about the source.
And dont give me that crap about "I'll never reveal sources" or how 'methods and sources arent anyones business but mine'-- of course you reveal sources.
Every decent journalist -- with principles -- does this. It's their job.
You reveal sources And you reveal methods when there's no danger to their ass or yours.
In my opinion -- the coast is clear.
myrln on 29 Jan 2005
Look...Bix doesn't have a damn thing to "clear." His name and reputation and insights and principles speak for him (and have done so right along), and anyone who lets some junior-grade gossipers question that and/or gives their vacuous, breathless trash credibility is the real problem here. Neither Bix nor his "expose" (oh, my) is a problem or in "trouble."
All this "ethical" handwringing over some little report. Spend more time and energy on something REALLY important: like pestering Oregon's legislature to get on the FedGovt to bring Oregon's sons and daughters home.
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
Neither Bix nor his "expose" (oh, my) is a problem or in "trouble."
All this "ethical" handwringing over some little report.
This is the basis of my argument.
Where we seem to differ is in the opinion that he only stands to benefit by clearing his name and reputation and how doing so is not a violation of his principles nor would it reveal (either way) any wrong doing be his or his expose.
The suggestion is to render the gossip without any merit at all. Ignoring it doesnt accomplish that.
Noah Brimhall on 29 Jan 2005
Just as an exercise I went to the directory were the PDC report is being stored on the City Club website (http://www.pdxcityclub.org/pdf/ - watch out I'm a hacker) and sure enough, there was every PDF they had published since 2003. The PDC report was sitting right there with a modified date of Jan. 12th. So if the PDC didn't want people to find the report before the 14th then they should have either waited to upload the document (easy) or just secured the directory were the document was located (not as easy).
As far as the question of whether b!X should reveal anything about his source (method, person or otherwise) I completely agree with b!X. Here is why: A reporter sometimes finds it necessary to use a anonymous source in their reporting. It is not necessarily the preferred method, but it is necessary. The source relies on this anonymity and if there is even the barest hint that b!X would ever reveal a anonymous source he will likely never hear from another anonymous source.
I think it is kind of funny that the Tribune reporter even asked b!X what his source was and felt it was necessary to publish his refusal to reveal his source. It just goes to show you that traditional media still doesn't consider a blogger like b!X a journalist, even though he has done plenty to prove otherwise.
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
The source relies on this anonymity and if there is even the barest hint that b!X would ever reveal a anonymous source he will likely never hear from another anonymous source.
While I understand the basis of that argument and agree with it -- media only protects sources with the principle b!X is standing on when the occassion deems t absolutely necessary to 'protect' the source.
I contend that there is a need to 'protect' the source at all given the situation here.
Worst case scenario, there is even a safe opportunity to make a greater case for your statement:
"So if the PDC didn't want people to find the report before the 14th then they should have either waited to upload the document (easy) or just secured the directory were the document was located (not as easy).
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
Correction:
I contend that there is no need to 'protect' the source at all given the situation here.
(I need tea)
Aaron on 29 Jan 2005
"That's why I'm under no ethical obligation to reveal either sources or methods..."
"The principle, for me, is I won't discuss methods and sources."
From the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics:
In other words, protecting an anonymous source is acceptable, though not desirable. Not disclosing your methods is unethical. Furthermore, given that the "leaked" report was posted all of 24 hours before it was available to the public, it's hard to make an argument that "traditional open methods" would not have yielded that information.
You do have an ethical obligation to explain how you got the information -- either it was on a publicly accessible website, a non-publicly accessible website (in which case, more explanation is needed as to why breaking into a non-publicly accessible site was necessary for the reporting), or a source who wished to protect his/her identity gave it to you.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
... either it was on a publicly accessible website, a non-publicly accessible website (in which case, more explanation is needed as to why breaking into a non-publicly accessible site was necessary for the reporting), or a source who wished to protect his/her identity gave it to you.
I've already stated more than once on this site that I didn't break into anything nor do I have knowledge of anyone breaking into anything.
Any while I have a set of standards for what I do here, I never claimed they were the standards of the SPJ. This short guide to mine are listed on this site's About page.
The point of describing or characterization, if not revealing, ones methods or sources is to provide context for understnding the information. Problem here is that the methods or sources through which the report was obtained is irrelevant to understanding my original post about the report, which was about what the report said.
To add another hypothetical to all the others in this thread, supposed I had found a copy of the report sitting abandoned on a bench in O'Bryant Square across the street from the City Club. Of what relevance would revealing that be to a story about the report?
I've denied using criminality to obtain the report, and no one other than the Tribune appears to be insinuating otherwise. I don't happen to believe that any other question is relevant.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
Although I do find myself wondering how less freaky people would have gotten if I had posted an item about what the report said, without posting an actual copy of the report to go along with it. But the force of habit is that when discussing a document, I link to it and/or provide it if one is available, so that question didn't even occur to me at the time.
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
But the force of habit is that when discussing a document, I link to it and/or provide it if one is available, so that question didn't even occur to me at the time.
It's a good habit to have and the sheer fact that it was done in this case clearly shows that you were unaware of it being a questionable or 'illegal act'.
Noah Brimhall on 29 Jan 2005
Aaron said:
This is probably the best argument against b!X's release of the document. Not knowing what b!X's source for the report is, I would hasten to judge him on whether or not he should have kept the source anonymous. The better question is, was there a need to publish the report 24 hours in advance of the intended publication date. Was there a public interest in obtaining the report early, or could we have waited a day. I think that had the report contained a startling revelation about how the PDC operated or uncovered massive fraud there would have been a clear public interest in publishing the information ASAP. The actual report was not so vital nor was there such a clear public interest in the early publishing of the story.
At the same time, I don't feel this falls into to the category of unethical behavior nor do I think there was any harm caused to either the City Club or the general public by the early release of the report.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
The actual report was not so vital nor was there such a clear public interest in the early publishing of the story.
Which is why I suspect there would have been less consternation had I simply written about what the report said without posting the report itself.
Aaron on 29 Jan 2005
Any while I have a set of standards for what I do here, I never claimed they were the standards of the SPJ. This short guide to mine are listed on this site's About page.
OK, we'll play by your rules:
Weblog ethics:
2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
You don't think a "discipline of verification" includes telling your readers something about how you obtain the information you report, beyond "I'm not going to reveal my methods, but they weren't illegal"?
Assuming you follow item #2 of the Weblog ethics, I'd have to assume the report did not exist online when you published your item about the report. Maybe you did find it lying in the middle of Pioneer Courthouse Square. Great! Tell your readers that so they can use the source of the report as a way of judging its accuracy and/or believability.
Bloggers have the power to transform journalism into a much more accessible, and transparent practice. It's a shame to see one of Portland's leading bloggers imply that he wants it to be more closed and mysterious instead.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
You don't think a "discipline of verification" includes telling your readers something about how you obtain the information you report, beyond "I'm not going to reveal my methods, but they weren't illegal"?
Not necessarily, no. In this instance, my readers would have been perfectly free to compare what I wrote, or the copy of the report I posted, to what the City Club released twelve hours later and thereby verified on their own its authenticity. The only way verification comes into this is the question of whether or not what I had indeed was the City Club report. Suppose I had said, "And I got it via X." My readers can't verify that, they'd have to take my word for it.
Same thing in a situation where I simply posted the repot and wrote about what it said. My readers either would believe me or not. And twelve hours later, they could check my credibility on it for themselves.
Noah Brimhall on 29 Jan 2005
b!X said:
Sure, but one of the benefits of the weblog for journalism is the ability to offer the full text of source documents rather than just summaries. One of my frustrations with Willamette Weeks expose of the Texas Pacific Group's "Tahoe" report was the fact that I couldn't read it for myself. It's not that I don't believe Williamette Weeks story, but it would be nice to read the report for myself. I think your readers appreciate the ability to read your source document when possible.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
I should get into the "link to it when you reference it" issue. On the page from where I took that list of weblog ethics it says about this, in part, the following:
The issue here is linking to the source material, no inherently linking to the source material on someone else's site. The issue here is to let readers look at the material you're writing about.
That brings me around to another hypothetical. For the sake of this argument, let's say that I did pull the report off the apparently-open pdf subdirectory on the City Club server. The idea of directories foolishly left open to the world is something I'd bet many sites do without even thinking about it, and might be a fact to leave unmentioned so that it remains an avenue to find information in the future.
Of course, the problem with that hypothetical reason is that in this item I went out of my way to describe, using Radmacher-Willis' comments as a jumping-off point, that very process of an open directory, using my own site as an example, so that reason for not discussing methods was thrown out the window anyway. But my point is that there are, arguably, legitimate reasons for not mentioning methods or sources in order to keep those avenues open in the future.
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
The issue here is to let readers look at the material you're writing about.
You have already addressed this issue in your web-log ethics and (I might add) in an ethical manner.
For the sake of this argument, let's say that I did pull the report off the apparently-open pdf subdirectory on the City Club server.
Lets say you did. The fact that you linked to it in accordance with your web-log ethics in referencing source material clearly illustrates that you were unaware of it being a questionable or ‘illegal’ act. Furthermore, it provides transparency in reporting which I do believe is another of your standards.
The idea of directories foolishly left open to the world is something I'd bet many sites do without even thinking about it...
Apparently.
…and might be a fact to leave unmentioned so that it remains an avenue to find information in the future.
That poses a conflict of interest. Either you are transparent and uphold your weblog ethics regarding linking to source material -- or you protect a method of research that forces you to contradict such standards and ethics.
I went out of my way to describe, using Radmacher-Willis' comments as a jumping-off point, that very process of an open directory, using my own site as an example
Which further illustrates your commitment to transparency and provides readers with information, which enable them to draw their own conclusions regarding the issue presented in your piece.
But my point is that there are, arguably, legitimate reasons for not mentioning methods or sources in order to keep those avenues open in the future.
Legitimate is not the word I would use. Granted, there are benefits in not mentioning or revealing methods or sources – however, when they conflict with standards and ethics, those benefits are at the cost of those same ethics and standards.
It should not be (as a journalist) the benefit to you (or other bloggers) that guides you in any event – what should guide you are the ethics and standards you have sworn to abide by:
Linking to referenced material allows readers to judge for themselves the accuracy and insightfulness of your statements. Referencing material but selectively linking only that with which you agree is manipulative. Online readers deserve, as much as possible, access to all of the facts--the Web, used this way, empowers readers to become active, not passive, consumers of information. Further, linking to source material is the very means by which we are creating a vast, new, collective network of information and knowledge.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
I did link to the source material. It was simply hosted on my own server.
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
And I commend you for linking to it in accordance with your weblog ethics. The question isnt whether or not linking to it was necessary -- your guidelines and ethics state that if you write about something and have access to the source material -- then it is necessary. You followed such guidelines.
The question is how was the source material obtained and whether it was potentially obtained at some risk to your source. A risk so great that it would make it necessary for you to protect the source (be it a person or method).
I contend that this situation doesnt make it necessary for you stand on the principle of 'protecting an annonymous source.' I simply dont see the risk. We should only call upon the principle of non-disclosure regarding annonymous sources at times when they warrant it.
I could be wrong -- but as I see it -- with the information you have provided -- this is no such time.
Chris Smith on 29 Jan 2005
So this poses the question to City Club of whether we should in the future secure the directory by turning off indexing (which still leaves a potentially vulnerability to file name guessing) or just modify our processes so we don't post the file until we are ready to announce it to the world.
But, in this instance, would you not have given your readers more information to judge the credibility of the information if you had linked to the copy on City Club's site, rather than copying it to your own site? This presumably would have ensured to your readers that the file was not a fabrication, or that someone inside the club had not 'leaked' it with an ulterior motive. Would this not have been beneficial to your readers?
allehseya on 29 Jan 2005
or just modify our processes so we don't post the file until we are ready to announce it to the world.
That would be advisable. I dont see how anyone can be condemend for a lack of security on the part of the City Club -- other than City Club.
The One True b!X on 29 Jan 2005
The question is how was the source material obtained and whether it was potentially obtained at some risk to your source. A risk so great that it would make it necessary for you to protect the source (be it a person or method).
Well, that's your question, and while you have every right, of course, to ask it, I've already explained my position, and people either buyinto it or not. At this point, we're both just repeating ourselves. Your contention is that there was no great risk involved here. My contention is that the risk factor is irrelevant to my decision.
I doubt either of us is going to convince the other at this point, and all we're going to do it make this a 100-post thread where we keep saying the same things over and over.
It isn't that your argument is unclear, or your point isn't getting across. It's that I don't subscribe to it.
As for Chris' scenario: I imagine that there'd be a counter-argument which would say, "This isn't released yet, and if it's linked to they may take it down, so let's just host a copy here."
TomHiggins on 29 Jan 2005
Having read all the posts here all I have to say is Stay Strong Bix.
You have not one question to answer to anyone save yourself. The report in question was on a publicaly accessable web site, thus it was WORLD READABLE..thats a technical term meaning your ass is flappin in the wind so make sure you have wiped recently.
Any calls on you ethics as a journalist can only be meet with a smile and a hearty thanks for the compliment...becuase thats what it is..they are complimenting you on being more of a journalist then they are used to dealing with in a sea of Trib an Boregonian hacks.
If anything this solidifies you in the strata of journalists most local hacks wont ever reach.
-tomhiggins
myrln on 29 Jan 2005
Bravo, Tom Higgins. I think you've put the period at the end of this discussion and made the point that ultimately counts.