Was this corporate spokesperson authorized to talk to this outlet about this topic? Just because they’re a spokesperson doesn’t mean they can talk freely.
Untrue. Reddit employees doing what their bosses tell them to are justifiably afraid of the blowback. Reminds me of the directive to not wear Reddit branding with the 3rd party app thing These folks don’t want targets on their back.
In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or knowledge of other record or document that gives timely information. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as “news sources”. Examples of sources include official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by a news event or issue.
Take the link and scroll down to the section titled “ON BACKGROUND”
Edit: I never learn how to not try to be helpful to hostile commenters. I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
I tried to help someone who prefaced their confusion with an assertion that they were unwilling to read the linked material. This one’s on me, I guess.
I still don’t get it. Nothing there says a spokesperson is not a source. Which is good because saying such a thing would make absolutely no sense.
I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
Don’t know what makes you label me as “hostile”, I’m legit just trying to understand.
they were unwilling to read the linked material
It’s like 12 paragraphs of non-sense. The person who looked it up and shared the link could just as easily have copied and shared the relevant portion.
A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
“Nothing there said the spokesperson is not a source”
They said in their statements that they wouldn’t identify a corporate spokesperson as a “source familiar”. That language — corporate spokesperson — is intended to avoid describing the representative as an actual “source” in the sense of identifying them as a leak.
Because The Verge wants them to return their calls. It’s not like it matters. Spokespeople aren’t the ones making decisions. It’s the C-suits, which is publicly available.
Actually, yeah. Otherwise, you fuck up whistleblowing. They could be in the position, realize what’s happening is wrong, be documenting it, trying to get out, etc…
Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to grant whistleblowers anonymity without granting it to corporate spokespeople providing statements on behalf of the company? You’re a fucking idiot
What the fuck is this? We’re granting corporate spokespeople anonymity now?
You give it to whoever asks for it or you never get another source again.
This isn’t a “source”. This is a corporate spokesperson
Was this corporate spokesperson authorized to talk to this outlet about this topic? Just because they’re a spokesperson doesn’t mean they can talk freely.
Yes, that’s what a spokesperson is. Did you read the article? If it was a leak that would have been stated.
…its both
Even though it’s a corporate spokesperson, they wouldn’t have requested anonymity if they were allowed to talk about it…
Untrue. Reddit employees doing what their bosses tell them to are justifiably afraid of the blowback. Reminds me of the directive to not wear Reddit branding with the 3rd party app thing These folks don’t want targets on their back.
That’s not what they do according to their own ethics statement
https://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement
I’m not reading that. What are you saying?
Take the link and scroll down to the section titled “ON BACKGROUND”
Edit: I never learn how to not try to be helpful to hostile commenters. I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
I tried to help someone who prefaced their confusion with an assertion that they were unwilling to read the linked material. This one’s on me, I guess.
I still don’t get it. Nothing there says a spokesperson is not a source. Which is good because saying such a thing would make absolutely no sense.
Don’t know what makes you label me as “hostile”, I’m legit just trying to understand.
It’s like 12 paragraphs of non-sense. The person who looked it up and shared the link could just as easily have copied and shared the relevant portion.
A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
Once again, none of this contradicts what I said.
“Nothing there said the spokesperson is not a source”
They said in their statements that they wouldn’t identify a corporate spokesperson as a “source familiar”. That language — corporate spokesperson — is intended to avoid describing the representative as an actual “source” in the sense of identifying them as a leak.
Uhh, isn’t that kinda against the whole point of being a spokesperson in the first place? To put a name and a face behind a message?
Dunno why The Verge plays along.
Because The Verge wants them to return their calls. It’s not like it matters. Spokespeople aren’t the ones making decisions. It’s the C-suits, which is publicly available.
The anti evil operations team has done this in the past.
What the fuck is “the anti evil operations team”? That sounds like corpospeak for a team that does deeply evil shit
Actually, yeah. Otherwise, you fuck up whistleblowing. They could be in the position, realize what’s happening is wrong, be documenting it, trying to get out, etc…
Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to grant whistleblowers anonymity without granting it to corporate spokespeople providing statements on behalf of the company? You’re a fucking idiot