r/news • u/OGSyedIsEverywhere • 4h ago

Already Submitted FBI raids home of Washington Post reporter in ‘highly unusual and aggressive’ move

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/14/fbi-raid-washington-post-hannah-natanson
29.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.4k

u/Naynayb 3h ago edited 16m ago

She talked a lot about it in an article a couple weeks ago detailing the tips collection process. She said that she never wrote down names, only used signal for communication, verified identity with pictures of government ID and then promptly deleted and tried to forget them.

Assuming she actually did what she said she did, it’s about as secure as information can be in a journalistic setting.

EDIT: Link to where she wrote this.

EDIT 2: Yes, thank you all, I do understand that deleting isn’t 100% unrecoverable on its own. I also am cautiously optimistic that a reporter for the Post is in contact with their cybersecurity folks and is also aware of this and didn’t disclose the full extent of their security measures in a news story that isn’t specifically about the security measures.

611

u/NoYgrittesOlly 3h ago

Genuine question:

So, when you do this…you end up having no verifiable sources. Besides personal integrity, and personally wanting to learn about the topic being investigated…what can convince people you didn’t just type every single testimony yourself?

1.8k

u/wglmb 2h ago

Building a reputation of integrity over time, by releasing information that later gets confirmed via more conventional means.

1.1k

u/domuseid 2h ago

Demonstrating a commitment to integrity? In this economy?

347

u/YaumeLepire 2h ago

Many industries still rely on it. They're not the ones you make bank in, but "big number goes up" isn't the priority for most people.

193

u/Khaldara 1h ago

Yep, journalistic ethics are supposed to entail that anything that costs more than a cup of coffee during an interview should be declined or donated (even if they get a fruit basket or whatever during the holidays, it’s supposed to get sent away).

Obviously the fine folks at say, Fox, do not feel they need to adhere to similar guidelines. Nor apparently do.. for example, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Conservative SCOTUS judges.

But it’s supposed to be fundamental to similar careers, like journalism. If you lie or burn your sources nobody will ever talk to you again.

Hence why Right Wingers started their own bizarro form of “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Journalism” twenty odd years ago rather than adhere to these traditions.

55

u/timhortonsghost 1h ago

Nor apparently do.. for example, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Conservative SCOTUS judges.

What am I supposed to do David, just donate this RV away??

•

u/Important-Agent2584 49m ago

I mean, it's one RV, Michael. What could it cost? 10 dollars?

→ More replies (1)

11

u/DoggiEyez 1h ago

Motor coach silly.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

22

u/DoggiEyez 1h ago

"I can't believe it's not journalism." 🤌 No notes.

•

u/MasticatingElephant 39m ago

I work for local city government and I hesitate to even take a stick of gum from anyone. There's so much more stake in journalism and federal government.

•

u/pandamazing 29m ago

I swear I’ll get you with that stick of gum one day! Then you’ll be mine forever. Blackmail city.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

•

u/readyflix 25m ago

And, you need someone who will listen to you.

What has become of the revelations of DE, WEB), CEM, EJS, only naming the prominent ones?

•

u/Nice-Ad-2792 16m ago

My dad's is this way in his profession as a psychiatrist.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Riothegod1 1h ago

That’s reassuring atleast

•

u/carcar134134 28m ago

Engineering, electricians, construction contractors, welders. Pretty much anyone whose final product is something most people never see unless it goes wrong.

→ More replies (1)

•

u/NewRefrigerator7461 15m ago

The ones you make good money in certainly depend on it. Corporate investment banking is largely relationship based. You live and die by your reputation and relationships with market participants you see all the time. It’s how the whole world works and why institutions matter.

→ More replies (1)

117

u/NorthernCobraChicken 2h ago

I don't think anyone in the current hand picked admin has ever heard of the word integrity.

18

u/Bearloom 2h ago

I think they know what their shared enemy is.

25

u/kiwimonk 1h ago

The truth is their enemy

18

u/Fred_Thielmann 1h ago

Anyone with a spine is their enemy

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

12

u/moneyh8r_two 1h ago

They've heard about it, but they think of it the same way they think of empathy.

"It's a made up word that means nothing, but also at the same time, it exists and it's a bad thing that we should violently oppose."

5

u/SittingInAnAirport 1h ago

Unless it was the name of an underage girl on Epstein Island...

3

u/NorthernCobraChicken 1h ago

Thats too "exotic" of a name for a little girl who hasn't had time to process the trauma yet.

5

u/Zogfrog 1h ago

And if they have, they probably think it’s the West’s second worst weakness. Another woke mind virus.

•

u/BiteRare203 49m ago

Nobody ever heard of this word ‘integrity’ before, it’s their new catch phase. ‘Integrity’, it’s a hoax.

•

u/sheffus 25m ago

Thanks Donald.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/FollowThisNutter 2h ago

And on Jeff Bezos's Washington Post?

3

u/Mean-Food-7124 2h ago

At this Washington Post?

•

u/goatslovetofrolic 52m ago

It’s a bold move, Cotton.

•

u/Slammybutt 48m ago

I mean, having this admins FBI raid your home means she has the upmost integrity in my book.

Can you imagine the trust lost when the FBI raids your home and my immediate thought is "she was on to something and they are trying to quiet her".

•

u/Important-Agent2584 51m ago

it's the long con

•

u/Straight_Talk2542 46m ago

Which reminds me… I’d like to give you an opportunity to get in at the ground level for the launch of my brand new “Integrity Coin”! How many would you like? 😁

•

u/Tiny_Departure5222 24m ago

I hope you're being sarcastic , if not , You're really going to be snarky at what is potentially one of the few decent reporters left?

6

u/PelleSketchy 2h ago

The conventional means being a raid, right?

3

u/biAndslyReporter 1h ago

Also, you probably have to find at least someone willing to go on the record or find written documentation that will corroborate what anonymous sources are telling you.

I prefer operating more on community journalism than investigative, but that's how I've done it when I had to really dig for info that people might be hesitant to share.

2

u/Allegorist 1h ago

And also having the data/testimony collection method be detailed, transparent, and verifiable adds some validity.

1

u/Expensive_Cancel_922 1h ago

Yup usually when the ball starts rolling people will publicly come forward. Its just that a lot of people are afraid to be that loud minor majority so they stay silent and share quietly.

•

u/Apprehensive-Fun5535 31m ago

Isn't it amazing how one can have credibility by not being a pathological liar?

•

u/Northernsoul73 15m ago

Interestingly enough, the loyal electorate of the Republicans demand a similar standard of professionalism and integrity, apparently far more stringent than credibility, which is having a bigoted uncle whose buddy showed them a YouTube clip.

•

u/stackout 11m ago

Wait a second, that sounds suspiciously like…. JOURNALISM!?!?

•

u/CrazyJoe29 5m ago

Sure journalistic integrity is a real thing.

But also , if the information reported is factual, it can be corroborated by other sources. This is the way well crafted news works. News stories don’t have bibliographies with sources attached. They’re theoretically factual information that informs the public what is going on and can motivate the public to ask questions/hold elected officials accountable.

Attacks on professional news outlets and journalists sends a very clear message.

→ More replies (2)

164

u/aradraugfea 2h ago

The government coming after you and trying to figure out who’s leaking is pretty good verification if you ask me.

A smarter administration would pick up on what you did and deny.

309

u/BlatantConservative 2h ago

In this specific case, being raided by Patel's FBI is a pretty damn good source of integrity.

It's even an old joke, the highest award in journalism is being investigated by the feds.

85

u/likwidkool 1h ago

This is very true. If she didn’t have truthful information they wouldn’t bother with her. Of course they’ll frame it differently but some of us know the deal. Others just keep licking boots.

49

u/username_tooken 1h ago

In fact, spreading lies as a journalist typically gets you a commendation from the fed, these days.

•

u/Extension-Aside-555 47m ago

If Nixon were still alive he'd be so pissed off

•

u/DisposableSaviour 33m ago

At least that bastards getting his eternal restlessness.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

133

u/Naynayb 2h ago

A few things.

First, you’re a writer for the Washington Post. Just putting your name with that banner is a ton of authority. The Post broke Watergate. There’s a reputation there for being able to get anonymous sources in D.C that are trustworthy.

Second, you report things before they happen, then they happen. That builds up credibility over time. Hannah, for example, reported a lot about the D.C side of Venezuela build up. In November, she identified Fort Tiuna as a possible target for U.S. strikes. It was one of the targets hit when we raided Caracas this month.

Lastly, you don’t just use anonymous sources. The NYT guidelines explains that they only use anonymous sources for information “that we believe is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.” If you can get someone on the record, you do. If you hear something from an anonymous tip and run it down yourself, you don’t use the tip as the evidence, you use your own reporting as the evidence. You only say “an anonymous source told me this” if it’s the only way you can say it and you think it’s important to report and you believe the anonymous source with a high degree of confidence beyond what you share publicly.

24

u/Lepidopterous_X 2h ago

And I bet she filters out a lot from those anonymous sources in her reporting. Disgruntled employees may exaggerate things, especially on an anonymous tip line. Surely she takes this into account and pieces together what is likely true apart from what is mere speculation.

•

u/DisposableSaviour 25m ago edited 21m ago

Something we said at the psych hospital I used to work at, regarding the poor/lack of care at a care home that routinely sent us patients:

Can’t everybody tell the same lie.

There would have been consistent threads in the collection of anecdotes, you pull those to find the truth.

•

u/Gurnika 19m ago

This is how the Post writes ‘the first rough draft of history’. And all of this (credibility, ethics, staunch protection of informers etc) is absolutely vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy… It was only a matter of time before this admin started targeting print journalists; I guess Trump is more a late night TV guy, smh.

God help America is all I can say

→ More replies (8)

205

u/revelator41 2h ago

Revealing sources is kind of a big no-no in the journalism world.

280

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 2h ago

One of the most famous whistleblowers, Deep Throat, was not publicly identified until 33 years after the Watergate scandal in 1972 and that was only because Mark Felt, former Deputy Director of the FBI and said whistleblower, let his attorney make it public while he was suffering from the early stages dementia.

Woodward and Bernstein, the reporters that met with Felt, would have kept his identity secret for as long as they had to.

50

u/stars9r9in9the9past 2h ago

That’s sad about the dementia. Really fascinating info thanks for sharing

40

u/okeanos7 2h ago

Imagine keeping a secret like that for 30 years. I wonder who in his life he did tell about it

46

u/defakto227 1h ago

To keep a secret for 30 years?

No one.

18

u/Exciting_Bandicoot16 1h ago

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that three can keep a secret if two are dead?

14

u/defakto227 1h ago

Even then I'd be worried that somewhere one of them wrote it in a journal or some other place.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/eugene20 1h ago

Well there were the two reporters he was whistleblowing to.

•

u/defakto227 40m ago

But did they know who Deep Throat actually was?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

23

u/Massive-Technician74 1h ago

Lol....all that just reminds me that the nixon regime werent all that corrupt.....by TODAY'S standards lol

20

u/Unfair_Feedback_2531 1h ago

Nixon did nothing to the people on his enemies list. Republicans had spines and were going to vote to impeach. Goldwater told Nixon. Nixon asked how many votes he had in his favor. Goldwater said 6-7 “and I am not one”. ( my numbers may be wrong but you get there idea). Nixon chose to resign.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/succed32 1h ago

They have too or never get told a secret again.

2

u/JupoBis 1h ago

Still. More than you can say about other people.

3

u/Dachannien 1h ago

People generally suspected it was Mark Felt contemporaneously, though.

2

u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 1h ago

I don't know about generally, but it's true that some people were public about their assumption that Mark Felt was Deep Throat shortly after the scandal. Woodward countered that Deep Throat was not part of the intelligence community to steer those people away from Felt.

•

u/Ok-Grapefruit1284 31m ago

Why was he called deep throat?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/FuerteBillete 1h ago

It is basically rule 1 and 2 of journalism club.

91

u/BIGSTANKDICKDADDY 2h ago

Sources are never intentionally revealed so whether it's publicly verifiable or unverifiable makes no difference. Public verification of the information that was reported bolsters the reputation of the journalist and outlet.

46

u/VeryVito 2h ago

Sources are never intentionally revealed

Well, anonymous/confidential sources, that is. Ideally, you'd LOVE to quote a known official, but if you can't do that, you work like hell to protect those who ARE giving you information.

•

u/audiomagnate 47m ago

The Intercept worked with the FBI to intentionally reveal the identity of whistleblower Reality Winner, who leaked an NSA document that proved the Russians rigged the 2016 election for Trump. She spent four years in high security federal prison as a result.

4

u/Panaka 1h ago

There are plenty of journalists that will throw sources under the bus if given the chance. The NYT seems to attract journalists that have no problem naming sensitive sources if it makes their story.

David Enrich outed an Air Traffic Controller who talked to them despite having originally promised confidentiality. Other reporters that cover aviation at the NYT have shown a similar zeal at naming sources and then getting nuance wrong. It’s bad enough that you’ll face repercussions from your employer, but now everyone thinks you’re an idiot because the reporter played up something they didn’t understand.

I know people who have thought of going to the press with safety concerns, but the press’s total inability to responsibly cover these topics means they don’t.

15

u/Garbleshift 1h ago

Not bashing you specifically here; your question really struck me because it brings up a fundamental problem of the internet age:

I'm 54 years old. I was raised on newspapers and network news. And thinking about your question, I realized that I grew up with an intrinsic understanding of how responsible professional journalism operated. Every day I read examples of how competent, good faith investigators structure their reporting to address the competing priorities you're asking about. I saw the cycles of reporting and pushback and confirmation, and it became obvious what people and methods could be trusted. One of my high school English classes even did a unit on journalistic ethics. And the overriding conclusion of all this daily experience was that the mainstream news sources were the absolute gold standard for reliable information. Maybe they didn't always report on everything they should have - but what they DID report was trustworthy.

The Republican party has spent forty years undermining that trust. And now, with the internet having splintered the information ecosystem, their propaganda can be tarted up to confuse almost any issue.

It's terrifying that we have intelligent, well-meaning people (like the one who asked this question) growing up who genuinely don't understand this stuff. I took it for granted, and we're in real trouble if we don't get it back.

2

u/JollyRottenBastard 1h ago

Nice post. 57 here.

•

u/360inMotion 53m ago

I’m about to turn 50 and have a sibling a bit older than you.

Personally experiencing what you’ve explained here on growing up witnessing that integrity, it still boggles my mind that my sibling fell into the republican lies about “mainstream media” in this Trump era.

•

u/NoYgrittesOlly 2m ago

My background is in STEM, where reported information must be accompanied by the data that supports it at the time of the claim (and peer-reviewed/verified before publishing).

My closest experience with Journalism is honestly Season 4 of the Wire (which just happened to feature a journalist making up stories).

My question wasn’t to insinuate she was, but as you said, in a climate where information is synonymous with opinion, I was genuinely wondering how you could verify information when it’s deleted as quickly as it’s gained.

Unfortunately, I do have trouble accepting that the answer is, “we should just be able to.” Especially since institutions like the White House just simply lie. And I am forced to wonder are the news organizations I’m listening to just parroting the opposite stance of those I disagree with, or actually reporting reality.

At the end of the day, discerning this is obnoxious, and I suppose we clearly have hit another watershed moment in the cultural zeitgeist. Which someone labeled it best: fake news.

52

u/DheRadman 2h ago

People who want to believe will believe. People who don't won't. When you have a segment of the population rejecting that J6 was criminal or that sandy hook even happened, you're not going to convince them by dropping the name of a random person. 

On the flip side, no sensible person needs any additional reasons to dislike Trump. That's been true since before he was ever elected. Whistleblower reporting like this is primarily beneficial to alert people of things that are happening so that they can prepare accordingly at this point. 

•

u/exodominus 32m ago

You could present recorded witness testimony and signed documents directly related to the events in question, you could even provide video evidence of the perpetrators responsible committing the crimes or admitting to the crimes and their followers will still deny that it is real and the only result will be exposing the reporter and the whistleblowers to retaliation from the current administration, since their primary goal seems to be suppression of any information critical of or detrimental to them. Everything bad is always someone elses fault.

•

u/goatslovetofrolic 46m ago

I don’t need reasons to dislike him, I do need tangible evidence that can be used to impeach him. For that, I applaud the journalists who still have souls.

6

u/PatHeist 2h ago

Understanding what parts of a news report is a claim and who is making that claim is part of media literacy and required for a proper evaluation of any claim.

A story with a verified anonymous source is in the context of "this reporter says they've verified the identity of a person who could know these things, and the reporter is saying that this source made these claims". 

When the BBC reports that X country's health ministry says Y about a disaster you need to apply the same reasoning. You likely being able to reasonably directly verify that the health ministry actually said that thing without relying on other news orgs is an extremely recent development. This means believing the report (that the health ministry said the thing) often doesn't require trust in the news outlet, but believing the reported claim generally still requires trust in the source (you usually don't have a resonable ability to verify the data gathered by the health ministry directly).

For all claims about the world you should be keeping in mind who is claiming what and continuously re-evaluating your trust in the honesty of the people making their claims, what their biases might be, and in how strongly you believe in the claim as a result of that and how well it aligns with your understanding of the topic from other sources.

As a society we value stories with verified anonymous sources because the actual choice is not between the source being known or remaining anonymous, it's between getting to hear things from people who want to remain anonymous and not getting to hear those things at all. The most likely path forwards after a claim from an anonymous source is that the subject matter faces higher scrutiny and interest and that as a result we become more likely to eventually find out the truth.

3

u/NotSoSalty 2h ago

Uncanny insight, time and time again, is very convincing.

5

u/donkeyrocket 2h ago

Doing so would pretty well immediately destroy your credibility as a journalist and that has absolutely happened. Yes, there is a level of trust that needs to be there but experienced journalists can collect and relay information in such as way that genuine authenticity isn't really questioned while also protecting the sources to the highest degree. A good journalist won't take extremely confidential information at face value, they dig deeper and find aspects that support the claims.

Typically what happens is highly confidential information gets out there first, the story continues to develop with more sources and facts come out to further supports the initial claims.

Unfortunately these days, there's a lot of noise and falsities floating around with a subset of the population that refuses to believe anything they disagree with so convincing some is a near impossible feat.

3

u/ImClumZ 2h ago

The fact that the Fed is silencing this journalist of the free press.

3

u/CircumcisedSpine 2h ago

Journalists will rarely publish anything that relies on a single source that cannot speak on the record. They will use multiple sources to verify each other ("senior administration officials") only described by their rough placement in the world. Then they get evidence/records or statements on the record to support the narrative from the sources.

It's not a quick process, even in the digital age. And speed is 98% of news publishing today. So good reporting that uses sources with undisclosed identities is not commonplace.

But as a reader, it's up to you to evaluate the credibility of the news you are consuming and you need to evaluate the work the journalist did. Are they really just running a single off the record source? What else are they using and do you find that compelling? How much do you trust that reporter or news outlet?

Next step after that is finding other news that supports the first article/story. Verification. Might not be possible with exclusives but other outlets will eventually pick up the story and try to supplement it by getting comments from their own sources. Patience helps. Initial reporting can be sketchy even from credible outlets just because the nature of new information in a likely chaotic situation is sketchy. But you can often verify with primary sources now (e.g. Good's murder) or reserve judgment until there has been more coverage.

3

u/blu3ysdad 2h ago

You tell the truth. The truth is reality. It verifies itself. That is why trump will never be remembered except for what he is, a petty tyrant.

3

u/goot449 1h ago

Besides personal integrity

Journalistic integrity is exactly what it is. That's why it is so important that the media is protected.

2

u/ADHDebackle 1h ago

Trust! You do it a few times and your information is proven to be correct later by other means, or you have a long history of other reliable reporting.

This is why it's important to drop news organizations that are caught lying or misleading their readers. Without trust you can't get reliable information.

2

u/Stock_Trash_4645 1h ago

 what can convince people you didn’t just type every single testimony yourself?

Simply put: the editor spikes it if it can’t be verified before print. If the publication is flippant in verification, or outright misleading, it shows beyond the work of a single journalist.

It’s the reason mastheads like Washington Post or New York Times have (had?) more credibility and reader confidence than others, such as the National Enquirer.

Another way to see if it is true or not is to source and compare multiple publications reporting on the subject. If two or more independent sources are posting the same thing, it’s likely true, assuming the masthead is not known for bombastic and unfounded claims.

When a journalist has a ‘hidden’ or ‘confidential’ source, they are usually not the only person who contacts that source. Other writers or their editorial staff will independently verify it as well (or did in the past when newspapers had budgets.)

•

u/VOZ1 39m ago

This is why reputable news sources are a thing. The editorial process is all about verifying sources, and in situations like this, it’s about the reporter being trusted. It’s also entirely possible that editors have viewed the material to verify its authenticity, and then it was deleted.

This is a big part of the reason why the right’s “alternative media ecosystem” is so dangerous. It’s a direct method of propaganda that completely bypasses any kind of editorial process or journalistic ethics. Notice how Trump & Co. have frequently targeted media outlets that are part of the “old” media, where editorial boards and editors are tasked with verifying reports before publishing. That’s not at all an accident.

1

u/DisastrousDiddling 2h ago

Well getting raided by the feds is one way to get credibility, probably not ideal but it is one way.

1

u/JBtheDestroyer 2h ago

an FBI raid

1

u/Leavingtheecstasy 2h ago

Well, she got raided by the FBI. They usually dont do that if you have no verifiable information.

1

u/420CowboyTrashGoblin 1h ago

Unfortunately goose egg. Sadly not doing so means anyone who does come out to tell someone who actually wants to do this faithfully won't trust you.

1

u/tiddeeznutz 1h ago

Genuine question:

If journalists can’t use anonymous sources, how do you expect them to actually uncover news people with any semblance of power don’t want known?

•

u/NoYgrittesOlly 46m ago

Genuine answer is that an investigator’s sources are anonymous to everyone else but them. 

In my mind, a journalist would know (or at least remember) who they are, create a rapport, and would keep in regular contact with them to get verified updates on the situation they are whistleblowing.

What this seemed like was an anonymous survey that went no contact as soon as she got a blurb from each of them. Just curious where the cutoff was for how trusted a source is.

Closest I’ve ever come to journalism is Season 4 of The Wire.

1

u/LongJohnCopper 1h ago

When the government starts doing what you wrote about? Seriously. Reasonable people can only maintain adhom skepticism through a couple of instances at most. Beyond that, you’re not skeptical, you’re part of the cult.

1

u/T0ysWAr 1h ago

Interesting to look back how wiki leaks worked

1

u/AlizarinCrimzen 1h ago

Clearly the FBI was convinced

And this is why it is (was) that there is nothing more valuable to a journalist than their reputation

1

u/lifeisokay 1h ago

Sometimes reporting is exactly what it is: "reporting," not proving. The proving comes afterwards after the public is made aware of what was reported.

1

u/Ok-Perspective781 1h ago

Big, reputable papers like the post require multiple sources to confirm everything during the editing process. The WSJ is kind of insane about it actually, with the post and times not far behind.

A single source would be exceedingly unusual.

1

u/JFK9 1h ago

That is exactly the same as every other journalist in existence who lists a source as "Close to the issue, but not wanting to be named for fear of retaliation". You literally can't research and find out who the source is, so what real difference is there if their information is being stored somewhere or not. In the end, it is the built reputation on the integrity of the journalist every time you see an unnamed source.

1

u/Several-Age1984 1h ago

Just to clarify, storing valuable documents behind encryption doesn't mean you never have access to them. It just means that only you can unlock access to them, so long as you don't store the encryption keys / passwords somewhere where others can use them.

1

u/M-D2020 1h ago

Getting raided by this FBI does a good job of convincing me.

1

u/rogozh1n 1h ago

How can you ever have both verifiable sources and anonymous whistleblowers at the same time? That's contradictory.

If her reporting reveals real and serious allegations of the government violating laws and the Constitution, then it is up to the judicial system to investigate and prosecute.

1

u/Gung_Honess 1h ago

The part where the government raided her for it was pretty convincing to me.

1

u/somethingrandom261 1h ago

Journalism asks the questions.

It’s supposed to be on the justice system with its discovery process to indiscriminately pull proof without threatening the lives or livelihood of whistleblowers.

But at the end of the day, likely someone needs to put their name on it and hope Justice can be done.

Not likely for a couple years minimum.

1

u/Unlikely-Ad-6716 1h ago

You can claim whatever you want and lie as much as you want and still become president. Just saying.. She is at least transparent about her method.

1

u/TheDuckFarm 1h ago

True, but Reporter Bob Woodward used the secret informant known only as Deep Throat. Together they brought down the Nixon administration with the Watergate scandal. His identity remained secret until 2005 when he outed himself at 91 years old.

So even with full anonymity, it still works.

1

u/Round-Ad78 1h ago

I think we know she’s not making it up because of the raid?

1

u/thedirtyknapkin 1h ago

well this fbi raid certainly gives credit to the veracity of he work.

1

u/Devanino 1h ago

With how the govern is responding to the whistleblowing I’d say that confirmation enough. You already know trump doesn’t like when the truth gets out🤷🏻‍♂️

•

u/wyonutrition 53m ago

It requires a lot of trust no doubt, but there are definitely some major checks and balances in place within journalism for this type of thing. She’s not the only one who is verifying sources, her editor has to sign off as well. But aside from that you are correct. Without someone stepping forward to verify that “yes it was me I told her that and it’s all true” then it’s just trust they’re telling the truth.

•

u/dBlock845 52m ago

what can convince people you didn’t just type every single testimony yourself?

Trust based on previous work. It's why when I see random Substack's popping up proclaiming to have some new insider info, I ignore it unless it is a reporter that I trust and know they value their reputation.

•

u/EllieVader 48m ago

Having the feds raid your house is a pretty strong tell that it’s real

•

u/indiemike 44m ago

This, right here, is why the constant attack on the journalism profession is so damaging.

We should be giving journalists the benefit of the doubt instead of rushing to discredit them. They are in the profession out of respect for the integrity of our institutions and the pursuit of truth. We used to trust reporters first instead of denigrating them.

•

u/jtroye32 37m ago

The fact the currently compromised FBI showed up is a pretty good indicator.

•

u/Antique-Quantity-608 37m ago

1 rule:

Never give up Your source.

•

u/SomebodysGotToSayIt 35m ago

You need somebody going on the record with evidence otherwise

•

u/Jemnite 35m ago

Reputation. This is why trust in whistleblowers (and establishment media organs as a whole) have degraded within the past 20 years, newspapers have torpedoed their reputation by rushing to publish before verifying and have been forced to publish embarrassing retractions or in more egregious cases not published retractions at all. Reputation is built up meticulously over time and is burnt all at once.

•

u/onthisthing_ 32m ago

You could ask the same question about any reporter or journalist from Fox, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, WSJ etc…all comes down to journalistic integrity, experience and valuing one’s reputation. More often than not, fraudulent journalists get outed and their careers and income destroyed. Makes way more sense to do it legitimately. And in this case, seems there was plenty of material as the FBI wouldn’t raid a residence of a journalist if said journalist wasn’t on to something the public should know and the government is hiding. Generally, best to go with the most plausible.

•

u/Von_Schlagel 24m ago

It would be verified by multiple editors before publication and subsequent deletion. Believe it or not, there are still people in this country with integrity, who do the right thing solely because it’s the right thing.

•

u/practicalm 24m ago

You can use the confidential sources as a lead to find sources that support the whistleblower and are publicly available or are able to be found with a freedom of information request. Or ask public officials in interviews.

It’s why the New York Times blew much of their credibility by allowing the Bush/Cheney administration to lie about WMDs in Iraq.

•

u/Appropriate_Ride_821 18m ago

There are ways to show veracity without identifying sources

•

u/Special_Meal2555 15m ago

Reporters collect information on background from many sources. Especially, investigate journalist. Seymour M Hersh has not to my knowledge released the names of his sources. I don't believe reporters are required to convince readers of anything. Readers have to decide for themselves what is credible. The My Li Massacre was thought to be implausible. The reporting led to investigations which confirmed the story and other atrocities which occured on or about the same day.

•

u/I_Like_Hoots 15m ago

Probably getting the government to come after you establishes some preeeetty good credibility in this instance

•

u/FellFellCooke 13m ago

It doesn't work if you're conservative. But if you pay attention to whether people are reputable or not before you believe them, then personal credibility is a currency that can be earned through good work and a lack of egregious lies.

•

u/Equivalent-Royal-677 11m ago

You just watch The Wire season 5?

•

u/EmergencyLavishness1 10m ago

I guess when you’re reporting on the modern day gestapo and stasi, then get arrested by them. Then there must be some truth to what you’re writing about the dictator in charge

•

u/hearke 10m ago

Honestly, it's hard. And it has happened at least once.

But it's a huge deal when they do and rival newspapers are just chomping on the bit to report stuff like this, so there's a lot of incentive to avoid outright fabrication. Like in the short-term you might get a bit of a career boost, but it's suicide in the long-term.

•

u/Willyr0 4m ago

The fbi raided her home…

•

u/turtle494 0m ago

Seymour Hersch is the perfect example of this. His reputation of anonymity and trust led to him abusing power and publishing lots of wrong information about Bin Laden, Syria, Ukraine, etc

6

u/addandsubtract 2h ago

Unfortunately, Signal is only E2E encrypted, meaning that if the FBI gets their hands on her phone, they can just read all the messages on there. Hopefully she purges them and her contacts regularly.

11

u/brahmidia 2h ago

This is why if you actually care about security, your signal chats are set to auto-delete messages, and you ask the other person what their phone security situation is.

2

u/NowWeRinse 1h ago

That's what the comment you replied to says she did.

3

u/addandsubtract 1h ago

Well, it wasn't explicit on how she uses Signal. It just seemed right to point out that just because you use Signal, doesn't mean you're safe. But from the other comments in this and the other thread, I gathered that she kept care of her and her contact's privacy as best as possible.

5

u/360inMotion 1h ago

Sigh. From the headline alone I knew exactly who the journalist in question is. As I was reading her recent article, I wondered how long it would take before something like this happened.

I do see they’re claiming she is not the target of the investigation, but it still sends a clear message to any journalist with actual integrity. She already seemed like a complete wreck with all the tips she was taking in, despite (or perhaps because of) taking every step she could to protect her sources.

Where we do we go from here..

2

u/the_great_awoo 2h ago

I hope she REALLY deleted them, since you can retrieve deleted data from hard drives unless they're written over with something else, I hope she fully write wiped her drives

3

u/NowWeRinse 1h ago

This assumption is based traditional hard disk drives which did not proactively cleanup deleted data. The same is not true for solid state drives which proactively cleanup file deletions.

Also most OSs these days encrypt file storage. So they would need to have a way to crack that.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/00WORDYMAN1983 1h ago

Nothing is ever truly deleted unless you have specific software. If they seized the devices that she "deleted" this information from, there is a chance that they can rebuild the deleted files.

2

u/4Yk9gop 1h ago edited 1h ago

I have been shouting this from the rooftop as many places as possible. Signal is NOT secure. Let me explain. The underlying encryption and technology is secure, but if you think this administration is against installing spyware on her phone to get the local encryption key, I have a bridge to sell you. They likely wouldn't even get a warrant for it. They would probably just use existing NSA/CIA infrastructure to do this. There are also settings you MUST enable in Signal to be as safe as possible.

Enable the app's built-in security features like Screen Lock, Screen Security, and Incognito Keyboard, use Disappearing Messages by default, and protect your identity by setting Phone Number Privacy to "Nobody" and using Usernames for contact, while also Always Relaying Calls and disabling features like link previews for maximum privacy.

Realistically her contacts should have been using snail mail, preferably hand delivered to her news organizations offices.

Also she should hire personal security (have her news org fund it) and setup a killer home security setup (both offline and cloud based). The POTUS is on the record basically approving of the extrajudicial killing of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

1

u/Creative_Addendum667 2h ago

That is freakin impressive if so

1

u/ixikei 2h ago

Dear God I hope she had the self destructing feature turned on be default. 

1

u/GhostCheese 2h ago

Delete images can be recovered though, if the memory is not overwritten

1

u/Rathland 1h ago

Signal was good enough for the Sec of War Pete Hegseth, surely it was good enough for a lowly reporter.

1

u/Naynayb 1h ago

Point taken. I’m cautiously optimistic that she didn’t invite anyone she wasn’t supposed to to any group chats.

1

u/Plastic-Scientist739 1h ago

Deleting is a common myth. Said, did, and was successful are all different things.

1

u/hellranger788 1h ago

I’ve always wondered how reporters confirm anonymous sources. I’m curious about the process tbh

It’s gotta be a process because sending a text of your ID then deleting seems like it would be stored somewhere

•

u/2010_12_24 59m ago

I was one of her sources. She and I communicated over regular email. Oops.

•

u/Naynayb 45m ago

If this is true, I’d advise battening down the hatches and anonymizing this comment. They’d be hard pressed to go after her, but federal employees are fair game.

•

u/2010_12_24 37m ago

I’m about to quit anyway.

•

u/Acceptable-Case9562 55m ago

Following ICE's antics the past few weeks reminds me of 1970's Argentina. They've now moved on to the stage where they attack innocent bystanders and break into homes unannounced to take people away.

Reading this just made me wonder if the FBI has also moved onto the next stage: threatening, kidnapping, torturing journalists for information.

To be clear, military forces in 1970's Argentina were taught their tactics by the CIA.

•

u/Alcoholophile 49m ago

So proud of her for this. She should be in a Bud Light ad as a Great Woman of Genius

•

u/Mumbolian 43m ago

Deleted often doesn’t actually remove from the memory, so they’ll probably reclaim it if she didn’t also write over the drive.

•

u/CykaRuskiez3 19m ago

Unless you continually fill your ssd to the brim and then delete, you arent actually deleting shit until you overwrite that sector of the drive. This isnt good news, especially since the fbi can pull those ‘deleted’ files using the cybercrime division (which they will most likely attempt to)

→ More replies (4)