Comment by Lerc
1 day ago
One of the things that I have come to trust the least in journalism is any WSJ story that says "people familiar with the matter said"
Can anyone find another source for this?
1 day ago
One of the things that I have come to trust the least in journalism is any WSJ story that says "people familiar with the matter said"
Can anyone find another source for this?
Why? Are there specific examples of WSJ reporting using unnamed sources that turned out to be false/misleading that led you to this conclusion? Unnamed sources carry some risks, sure, but it's obvious that few people would be willing to put their named to leaked info like this.
"In 2019, Altman was asked to resign from Y Combinator after partners alleged he had put personal projects, including OpenAI, ahead of his duties as president, said people familiar with the matter."
A statement declared to be false by the person who made the decision, in evident increasing frustration as the falsehood purpetuated.
I am familiar with that entire episode, and while I agree that quote gives the wrong impression, that definitely falls in the realm of gray area and it's not hard for me to see how "people family with the matter" truthfully reported what they knew: Namely, Altman was asked to choose his priorities - do one or the other, but not both. Again, I think reporting that as "asked to resign" gives an incorrect impression of what happened, but literally it's not that far off.
1 reply →
You don't have to trust WSJ's reporting, but most people do, including fellow journalists. Their track record is also solid.
(Their opinion section is of course a different matter.)
Is your objection specifically to the WSJ, or to the sources not being named in general?
If the former, yes, the are other outlets reporting this with independent sourcing (e.g. The Information).
In general the absence of any clear statement of the source having an ability to know the information.
Specifically, yes The WSJ journal "sources familiar with" has been the end point of research into many claims that I have tried to find the origin of.
A lot of stories report that the WSJ has reported...
The combination of the paywall limiting casual readers to check the context of a reference and the perception that a widely reported claim is true needs a stronger foundation than 'A source familiar with said [something that is frequently an interpretation rather than a direct observation]
So yes, I'm definitely prepared to accept independent sourcing. Do you have a link?
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/amazons-jassy-raised...
But the sourcing isn't any more detailed, just independent rather than just re-reporting the WSJ story.
What's the issue with WSJ? "people familiar with the matter" is standard lingo, means the journalist and editors have vetted the sources (multiple).
& many times the sources don't want to reveal their identity or go on record. A sort of tradeoff--to get the info they have to protect the source
"You may not talk to the media" is pretty standard language in US employee contracts so obviously these people don't want to fireable offenses on the front page of the newspaper.
I saw several mentions of corruption. But who brought it to the administrations attention. Envy and corruption. Stifle competition, by greasing palms you are familiar with.
When I speak to journalists, I am always on deep background. I’ll point them to people who can corroborate. But they’ll be off the record. Refusing anything but named sources in one’s information diet is fine, but most people I know who do this are remarkably inconsistent on the other axis, source quality, accepting names randos on Twitter as the word of god while rejecting respected journalism because Congressional staffers aren’t going to get themselves fired over a story.
I don't mind anonymous sources provided there is a clear assertion by the journalist that the source witnessed or had direct evidence of the thing being disclosed. Anything that, should the information be wrong, reveals that either the journalist or the source was lying.
A source 'familiar with' does not reach that bar.
"A source who wishes to remain anonymous witnessed..." Is acceptable.
"Subject disclosed to an anonymous source...."
With the current source decaration they could make any claim they wanted in the story. They coud declare alien invasion and when called out say there was a person on Reddit familiar with the situation, they were wrong about everything and had no credibility, but they were familiar with the situation.
When the battle is to come up with the most significant claim the quickest, there needs to be stronger standards for the accuracy of the claim
Eh, this is a silly bar for evidence. I'm sure someone can find a way to functionally operate in the world at it. But most people can't, and certainly not anyone with any influence. There is value in hearing suppositions. Hypotheses. Even if they haven't yet been proved. In part because airing that laundry sometimes helps prove or disprove them.