That seems in line with their standard procedure.

(... This comment is not advocacy for their standard procedure.)

Just skimming the article because I kinda want to just give my thoughts on the title, since I kinda think the news should source their research more and provide evidence for their claims. Obviously people make anonymous statements and I don't think we should try to unmask them, but media producers should still put an "[n] Anonymous contributor $date" at the bottom of the page and let the reader determine for themselves how accurate that point is.

I have hard time understanding what constitutes “the press” these days. When major networks wouldn’t publish a story on Harvey Weinstein for years are they really “the press”? When Fox News wouldn’t publish a story on Monsanto based on corporate directives are they really “the press”? What about CNN’s weekly calls with Jeff Zucker setting the tone of the news coverage?

Personally, I consider Glenn Greenwald “The Press” these days, everybody else, not so much.

I have lost my appreciation of GG after his recent breakup with Intercept.

I find Intercept the most interesting and insightful "press" these days, but I also like NYT, WaPo, WSJ (not its opinion section) and Economist.

Yes, they're all the press. For every instance of corruption you've listed, the outlet in question can still report on something else that others won't. That's the marketplace of ideas. Attacking each one for being imperfect on its own diminishes the chances that a given piece of information will be reported in the future.

Now of course that doesn't mean you should blithely believe what they say, or think you're getting the whole picture from any one. But they do all collectively form the press.

Where is the line? In the past I’ve been contacted a few times randomly by journalists who - by the tone of the conversation - are trying to get me to tell them something confidential that they can form a story around. I am not a lawyer but leaking confidential information or breaking an agreement with your employer can be a criminal act you can be taken to court for, and I would think someone (like the press) aiding in the dissemination of confidential information is also engaging in a criminal act. Why should the press get special protection above any other citizen in this regard?

Well, I mean, because the supreme court said that they get special treatment. [0]

The rationale is that it's too easy for politicians/officials to hide things from the public by arbitrarily declaring things as "secret", and that the public has the right to know about this stuff.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

So does that mean anyone can leak confidential information from any company or government agency without accountability and without recourse for those harmed?

No, that means that the journalist who publishes the information (who signed no such classified agreement) wouldn't have accountability for things that aren't directly related to national security. The individual actually doing the leaking could still be prosecuted.

The people are far more important than the government, agencies, or corporations.

These entities care for nothing but power, vying for it every moment, corrupting everything they can corrupt to get more of it.

It is essential to have a spotlight on them exposing when they go too far.

> Why should the press get special protection above any other citizen in this regard?

In other words, why shouldn’t we punish whistleblowers?

Because otherwise we would be on a fast track to an authoritarian dystopia.

As a journalist I can tell you that an important portion of what we report comes from sources that divulge proprietary, secret, or classified info.

Journalists don’t give up their sources due to the risks you are highlighting.

Anyway - for a open society to function we need to live in the same factual world and media contribute to that.

Why should religious groups get special dispensation to discriminate against protected groups, even when performing work for the government?

Both are based in the first amendment. IMO the press protections are a more legitimate application, particularly wrt to information that is ultimately about public policy.

I'd argue against referencing your constitution since its not my constitution, but to my knowledge Buzzfeed is a US corporation, so I guess it still applies.

Breaking an agreement with your employer is a civil act, at least in the US. "Confidential" information is a pretty broad designation as well, so things like insider trading and trade secrets can be a criminal act but other "confidential information" your company deems so might only be a civil violation or perhaps not even that if it's not covered by signed contracts.

That verb "target" used to sound ominous but it turns out it's used for perfectly OK things like a boss reminding their staff not to share confidential information with the media. That's described here as "The administration has also targeted journalist sources". I guess I've been targeted as a journalistic source too because I've signed employment contracts agreeing not to talk about my work to the press.

This is pretty bad journalism and just kind of meant to stoke the fire of controversy. The subpoena will most likely be dropped (as ICE would with almost certainty lose in court[1]).

The Yale Law Journal article cited does argue that even though it's worrysome that there's no federal reporter's privilege, there's plenty of precedent, including constitutional (state-level), statutory as well as common-law protections that can be invoked to throw out this kind of lawsuit.

[1] https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-de-facto-reporter...

ICE trying to subpoena things that they know wouldn’t hold up in court seems fairly worthy of coverage, if you’d ask me.

Except that it literally happens all the time, mostly by local agencies. But this happens to be news because it's ICE, and everyone hates ICE. It's not that hard to see the click-bait selective reporting.

That still sounds worth the coverage. Why are these agencies wasting tax payer money on these? They clearly have too much budget

I suspect subpoenaing information is far cheaper than seeking warrants to perform physical investigation, even before you consider the investigation.

Defending the subpoena is only expensive if they defend it.

"this happens to be news because it's ICE"

Exactly. I don't see why that justifies the dismissiveness.

> I don't see why that justifies the dismissiveness.

Because it's click-bait selective reporting that stokes outrage. (Case in point: Just take a look at how I'm getting spam downvoted after outlining my position fairly straightforwardly.)

You’re getting downvoted because your position is absurd on its face. Just because subpoenas are likely to be dismissed does not make them unworthy of reporting, and arguably quite the opposite - particularly when it is a major federal agency doing the subpoenaing rather than some small town sheriff.

A subpoena is expensive and onerous to fight. Yes, Buzzfeed has the resources to do so. Does your local paper? To dismiss the power and newsworthiness of a subpoena from a major federal agency with all of the financial and human resources (funded by you the taxpayer!) that such position implies is cynical beyond belief. To then further dismiss the criticism of that view as “spam” is revealing.

Kind of jarring to read this kind of misinformation here on HN. This is not true. Even as a non-lawyer, I know that you can literally just ignore it and go to the contempt hearing (where the judge will most likely side with the news outlet).

Yeah that's exactly what attorneys say about legal requests all the time. "Oh just ignore it, no need to prepare, the judge will see it your way". Then they write you a check to thank you for saving them from boredom. </sarcasm>

Have you ever retained an attorney for any legal issue whatsoever? From my experience, your comment is the grave misinformation.

> Even as a non-lawyer, I know that you can literally just ignore it and go to the contempt hearing (where the judge will most likely side with the news outlet).

> Even as a non-lawyer

> non-lawyer

Hey @dvt, this is a pretty bad look. I'm not an attorney; I've learned well enough through absurd-on-face comments of my own not to give legal advice when I'm out of my depth... or at all.

This is the position you're in.

> not to give legal advice when I'm out of my depth

Maybe you're confused, I'm not giving any legal advice. First of all, there's no one to give legal advice to; but second of all, it's purely a procedural claim. It's like saying "if you don't pay your traffic ticket, your driver's license might get suspended." Similarly, if you ignore a subpoena, you'll go to a contempt hearing where you'll make your case to a judge.

How that constitutes "legal advice" is beyond me, it's simply a brute fact.

And many times have you been subpoenaed, exactly?

Nope. When the freedom of press is under attack by the government, it is news. Every single time.

I think the problem is that most of the content is general subjective anti-Trump ranting, and not specific to this incident.

Is revealing sources really a violation of "freedom of press"?

What exactly is freedom of the press?

> Is revealing sources really a violation of "freedom of press"?

Well, when a confidential source has their identity revealed it's likely to go pretty badly for them. eg: many corporate and gov whistleblowers being fired + pursued extra-legally, Chelsea Manning thrown in prison, and so on.

So, (most) media organisations seem to resist doing the revealing.

Whether or not that falls strictly under the "freedom of the press" term or not though, is not all that relevant.

The concept of "don't reveal sources" is pretty basic, regardless of the term people use to describe it. ;)

So no hope of Harvard notation from the Beeb, then?

It's the ability to publish criticism and facts about the government without facing harm from doing so.

Revealing sources violates the trust those sources depend on to ensure the truth gets reported, and risks harm to those sources.

This should not be a "press" issue, if they issued it to some random citizen it should face the same scrutiny

personally I am tried of the "press" believing they have or should be treated different than anyone else. It should not matter if it was the NYTimes, Buzzfeed, Fox, or JoeBlow Citzen Blog...

I don't think anything that the press is asserting as their freedom in any way implies that anyone who wants to publish and enjoy those same freedoms shouldn't have them.

You're press, and I'm press too.

> This is pretty bad journalism and just kind of meant to stoke the fire of controversy.

Imagine not reporting on the fact that a federal institution is trying to test their limits.

Just because something is likely to be thrown out doesn't mean an agency pushing limits shouldn't be reported. The entire point of the press is to bring awareness to situations like this.

> Imagine not reporting on the fact that a federal institution is trying to test their limits.

Subpoenaing sources is standard operating procedure for all law enforcement agencies (from the FBI, to ICE, to your local PD). As mentioned in a different post, it's a low-risk, high-reward legal strategy, even though it won't work 99.9% of the time.

It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

Found the ICE lawyer!

Found the person that thinks this is Reddit.

The problem isn’t that they will be forced to comply with the subpoena, but that they tried to issue one at all.

This is standard operating procedure and happens all the time, especially at the local level. 99.9% the subpoenas fall through, but it's a low-risk, high-reward legal strategy.

Then that is a bug that needs to be fixed.

Not really, because there might be some cases where compelling a journalist to reveal their sources is the right thing to do. Coming up with examples is trivial: child abuse, war crimes, etc. Of course, this should be extremely rare (which it already is). The freedom of the press, much like the freedom of speech (and religion, for that matter), is not -- Constitutionally speaking -- absolute.

I'm not clear how those require revealing sources?

If a source reports a war crime, people should be going after the war criminal, not the person that called them out

No, the bug is a government agency knowingly trying to work around legal process.