Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:31 PM
Thu Nov 26
21 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/16/09
PS: Pareene, now you've done it. Expect another Op-Ed accusing Gawker of destroying print journalism in tomorrow's Post. #washingtonpost
10/16/09
As I recall, Fred Hiatt made an extremely lame apology after Valerie Plame's name was published in the WaPo. #washingtonpost
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/17/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/17/09
I think you've hit on the key point: what really matters is newsworthiness, not primarily the way the info was obtained (again, assuming that the journalist did not play a role in the illegal activity (which TC didn't)).
In both a leak and a hack, the company's proprietary information or documents were taken from the company against the company's will. The only difference is whether the info/docs were taken by an employee (acting against the interests of the company, and possibly civil or criminal law), or by an outsider, before being given to the reporter.
It seems to me the real issue isn't how the news org. obtained the info, but whether it is newsworthy. For example, assume these weren't business plans from Twitter, but instead were docs from a meatpacker revealing the presence of deadly bacteria in its ground beef -- info that the company planned to keep secret. I think just about everyone would agree that a news org. should publish the info -- whether the docs were passed along from leaker to reporter, or forwarded by email to the reporter by a hacker who broke into the meatpacker's email system.
I agree that, at some level, printing leaked or hacked info or docs does "encourage such activity. And I don't know anyone who, as a general matter, says that people should break company policy or the law. But I also think that having a free and aggressive press is vital, and that prohibiting publication of unlawfully obtained info (assuming that the reporter played no role in the illegality) would be a very dangerous development.
07/17/09
With unsavory methods of newsgathering comes a stiffer test of newsworthiness. If a reputable news source publishes stolen information, it has to be able to justify it.
Saving lives and preventing gross injustice are justifications. Spreading private corporate information and possibly trade secrets aren't.
07/17/09
07/17/09
If the reporter himself uses illegal means, he can and should be prosecuted. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. The question is whether a reporter can print info/docs where someone else obtains it through illegal acts, in which the reporter played no role. I think he can.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
What I want to know is if TC is going to help the investigation or are they going to protect their source/criminal?
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09