A couple of people have misconstrued what I wrote, so I want to clarify. What I wrote is meant to help inform sources about how to speak to a journalist safely so that you don't make a mistake and think something is off the record when it isn't. 1/8https://twitter.com/KimZetter/status/1015988397184200704 …
-
-
I've read what you wrote, and what you stated you suspected. The blurring of activism and journalism is why journalism as the Fourth Estate is in danger, or perhaps dead. That, and clickbait and opinion disguised as factual reporting.
-
So, no, you don't know what agreements were made?
-
I am 100% sure than no agreement was made that talking to a 'journalist' would result in said journalist becoming a source for law enforcement. Other journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal sources. Your call, your conscience.
-
Why are you so sure what I brought to the FBI was stuff he told me?
-
Because you said so. "On its face, I broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism, but what he was doing should cause a source to lose protection,” Wheeler told me in a lengthy phone interview.
-
Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.
-
Breaking the cardinal rule of journalism is the key factor here. Anyone who trusts reporters, or bloggers, or activists pretending to be journalists, to hold confidences are fools when it can be broken cavalierly because of a difference in ideology or politics.
-
On what basis do you claim I had an ideological difference with this person? At least as far as he told me, we agreed ideologically.
- 19 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.