Re:Bomb kills journalist who exposed Malta's ties to tax havens
by tomp on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @06:11AM
(#15489807)
Isn't the message more like "expose, but anonymously"? Well, I mean, hopefully that's how people would understand it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bomb kills journalist who exposed Malta's ties to tax havens
by dagw on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @06:55AM
(#15489969)
Anonymous exposure doesn't carry the same weight and can easily get lost in shuffle. No one cares about a random page buried in Wikileaks until some journalist highlights its existence and starts making a lot of noise about it. I mean, from what I understand, this journalist was 'just' reporting on information that was already readily available to anyone willing to go through all the Panama Papers.
Re:Bomb kills journalist who exposed Malta's ties to tax havens
by sneak on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @07:03AM
(#15489996)
And yet somehow we have Fake Steve Jobs, The Grugq, and the Shadow Brokers.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
Re:Bomb kills journalist who exposed Malta's ties to tax havens
by dagw on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @07:23AM
(#15490073)
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
I'm just not sure I believe that. Do you think the Snowden leaks, for example, would have had the same spread and impact if it was just an pseudonymous data dump and without someone like Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian adding a 'face' and legitimacy to the information?