The Guardian reports that Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat containing dozens of Biden administration officials due to a typo in his phone number. The chat, intended for senior staff communication, briefly exposed Goldberg to internal discussions before the error was noticed and he was removed. While Goldberg himself didn't leak the chat's contents, the incident highlights the potential for accidental disclosure of sensitive information through insecure communication practices, especially in a digital age where typos are common. The leak itself, originating from within the chat, exposed the Biden administration's internal debates about handling classified documents and the Afghanistan withdrawal.
This Lithub article discusses the lasting impact of the "Mike Daisey and Apple" episode of This American Life, which was retracted after significant portions of Daisey's monologue about Apple's Chinese factories were revealed to be fabrications. The incident forced TAL and its host, Ira Glass, to rigorously examine their fact-checking processes, leading to the creation of a dedicated fact-checking department and a more skeptical approach to storytelling. The piece emphasizes how the Daisey episode served as a pivotal moment in podcasting history, highlighting the tension between narrative truth and factual accuracy and the crucial importance of thorough verification, especially when dealing with sensitive or impactful subjects. The incident ultimately strengthened This American Life's commitment to journalistic integrity, permanently changing the way the show, and arguably the podcasting industry as a whole, approaches fact-checking.
Hacker News users discuss the Ira Glass/Mike Daisey incident, largely agreeing that thorough fact-checking is crucial, especially given This American Life's journalistic reputation. Some commenters express continued disappointment in Daisey's fabrication, while others highlight the pressure to create compelling narratives, even in non-fiction. A few point out that TAL responded responsibly by retracting the episode and dedicating a subsequent show to the corrections. The lasting impact on Glass and TAL's fact-checking processes is acknowledged, with some speculating on the limitations of relying solely on the storyteller's account. One commenter even suggests that the incident ultimately strengthened TAL's credibility. Several users praise the linked Lithub article for its thoughtful analysis of the episode and its aftermath.
The Guardian's US edition thrives despite its open, no-paywall model by focusing on a membership program and philanthropic support. Instead of restricting content, they cultivate reader relationships, emphasizing voluntary contributions and highlighting the public service value of their journalism. This strategy allows them to maintain a large audience, enhancing their influence and attracting advertising revenue, while donations and memberships provide a significant and growing portion of their funding. They prioritize international news and investigative reporting, differentiating themselves from other outlets and appealing to a loyal readership who value their unique perspective.
Hacker News commenters discuss The Guardian's success with a voluntary contribution model, expressing skepticism about its long-term viability and replicability. Some doubt the claimed 30% conversion rate for recurring contributions and suggest it's inflated or unsustainable. Several attribute The Guardian's success to a unique combination of factors, including its established brand, left-leaning audience, and reliance on foundation grants, arguing it's not a model easily replicated by other publications. Others point to the importance of clear communication and framing of the contribution request, contrasting The Guardian's approach with more aggressive paywall strategies. Some commenters also highlight the potential downsides of relying on reader donations, including vulnerability to shifts in public sentiment and potential bias towards donor interests. A few offer alternative models or suggestions for improvement, such as tiered memberships or focusing on specific niche content.
Investigative journalist Pavla Holcová details how she and her colleague, Ján Kuciak, became targets of Slovak businessman Marian Kočner. Kočner, now imprisoned for ordering Kuciak's murder, also planned to have Holcová killed after her reporting exposed his fraudulent activities. Holcová learned of the plot after Kočner's arrest and the subsequent investigation revealed communication discussing her surveillance and intended assassination. This revelation came after years of harassment and intimidation she faced due to her investigations into Kočner. The article underscores the dangers investigative journalists face, particularly when exposing powerful figures involved in corruption.
Hacker News commenters discuss the chilling implications of a journalist being targeted by a powerful criminal. Several express skepticism about the lack of mainstream media coverage, questioning why such a significant story hasn't garnered wider attention. Some speculate about the reasons, suggesting potential political pressure or editorial choices. Others focus on the practicalities of witness protection and the difficulties of maintaining anonymity in the digital age. A few commenters express sympathy and concern for the targeted journalist and colleague, highlighting the dangers inherent in investigative journalism. The overall sentiment reflects a mixture of disbelief, concern, and a desire for more information about the case.
Micah Lee's blog post investigates leaked data purportedly from a Ukrainian paramilitary group. He analyzes the authenticity of the leak, noting corroboration with open-source information and the inclusion of sensitive operational details that make a forgery less likely. Lee focuses on the technical aspects of the leak, examining the file metadata and directory structure, which suggests an internal compromise rather than a hack. He concludes that while definitive attribution is difficult, the leak appears genuine and offers a rare glimpse into the group's inner workings, including training materials, equipment lists, and personal information of members.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of easily accessible paramilitary manuals and the potential for misuse. Some commenters debated the actual usefulness of such manuals, arguing that real-world training and experience are far more valuable than theoretical knowledge gleaned from a PDF. Others expressed concern about the ease with which extremist groups could access these resources and potentially use them for nefarious purposes. The ethical implications of hosting such information were also raised, with some suggesting that platforms have a responsibility to prevent the spread of potentially harmful content, while others argued for the importance of open access to information. A few users highlighted the historical precedent of similar manuals being distributed, pointing out that they've been available for decades, predating the internet.
The article "Who's Afraid of Tom Wolfe?" explores the mixed critical reception of Tom Wolfe's fiction, particularly focusing on A Man in Full. While acknowledging Wolfe's journalistic talent and cultural influence, the author dissects the criticisms leveled against his novels: simplistic prose, cartoonish characters, and sprawling, unwieldy plots. The piece ultimately suggests that the negative reactions stem from a discomfort with Wolfe's satirical portrayal of societal elites and his embrace of realism, which challenges prevailing literary trends favoring minimalism and postmodernism. Wolfe's ambition and popularity, the article implies, threaten the established literary guard, leading to a dismissive attitude toward his work despite its insightful social commentary.
HN commenters largely agree that Wolfe's decline in quality began after A Man in Full, with some attributing it to his reliance on formulaic social satire and others to his adoption of a more conservative viewpoint. Several suggest that his earlier works like The Right Stuff and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test remain classics of New Journalism, praising Wolfe's immersive reporting and energetic prose. Some counter that Wolfe's work was always shallow, stylistic flourish over substance, and enjoyed more popularity than deserved. A few commenters discuss his influence on other writers and the legacy of New Journalism more broadly. One highly upvoted comment notes the irony of Wolfe, who mocked academia, now being the subject of academic analysis.
The Nieman Lab article highlights the growing role of journalists in training AI models for companies like Meta and OpenAI. These journalists, often working as contractors, are tasked with fact-checking, identifying biases, and improving the quality and accuracy of the information generated by these powerful language models. Their work includes crafting prompts, evaluating responses, and essentially teaching the AI to produce more reliable and nuanced content. This emerging field presents a complex ethical landscape for journalists, forcing them to navigate potential conflicts of interest and consider the implications of their work on the future of journalism itself.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of journalists training AI models for large companies. Some commenters expressed concern that this practice could lead to job displacement for journalists and a decline in the quality of news content. Others saw it as an inevitable evolution of the industry, suggesting that journalists could adapt by focusing on investigative journalism and other areas less susceptible to automation. Skepticism about the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content was also a recurring theme, with some arguing that human oversight would always be necessary to maintain journalistic standards. A few users pointed out the potential conflict of interest for journalists working for companies that also develop AI models. Overall, the discussion reflected a cautious approach to the integration of AI in journalism, with concerns about the potential downsides balanced by an acknowledgement of the technology's transformative potential.
Summary of Comments ( 29 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601213
Hacker News commenters discuss the irony of a journalist infiltrating a supposedly secure Signal group chat aimed at keeping communications private. Several highlight the ease with which Goldberg seemingly gained access, suggesting a lack of basic security practices like invite links or even just asking who added him. This led to speculation about whether it was a deliberate leak orchestrated by someone within the group, questioning the true level of concern over the exposed messages. Some commenters debated the newsworthiness of the leak itself, with some dismissing the content as mundane while others found the revealed dynamics and candid opinions interesting. The overall sentiment reflects skepticism about the security practices of supposedly tech-savvy individuals and amusement at the awkward situation.
The Hacker News comments section for the article "How the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg Got Added to the White House Signal Chat" contains a lively discussion with several interesting points raised. Many commenters express skepticism about the supposed security of Signal, pointing out that metadata, such as who is in a group chat, is still vulnerable even if message content remains encrypted. This vulnerability is central to the article's narrative, as Goldberg's presence in the Signal group revealed connections and information despite the encrypted nature of the messages themselves.
Several commenters discuss the implications of using Signal, or any encrypted messaging platform, for official government communications. Some argue that such usage is a violation of record-keeping laws and transparency requirements, while others contend that officials have a right to private communications. This debate highlights the tension between security, privacy, and public accountability.
One commenter speculates that Goldberg's inclusion might have been intentional, suggesting it could have been a way to leak information strategically. This theory introduces an element of intrigue and raises questions about the motivations behind Goldberg's addition to the group.
Another commenter draws parallels to previous instances of journalists being privy to sensitive information, highlighting the complex relationship between journalists and their sources. This comment provides historical context for the Goldberg incident and underscores the ethical considerations involved in such relationships.
The technical details of Signal's security features are also discussed. Some commenters point out that Signal offers "sealed sender" functionality, which would prevent the metadata leak described in the article. This discussion delves into the nuances of Signal's features and suggests that the incident might have been avoidable with proper configuration.
Furthermore, several commenters express frustration with what they perceive as sensationalist reporting, arguing that the article overstates the security implications of the incident. They point out that simply knowing who is in a group chat, without access to the message content, doesn't necessarily constitute a major security breach.
Finally, some comments criticize the article for focusing on the technical aspects of the leak rather than the underlying political implications. These commenters shift the focus from Signal's security to the broader context of White House communications and potential manipulation of information.
In summary, the comments on Hacker News provide a multifaceted perspective on the Goldberg incident, covering technical details of Signal's security, ethical considerations for journalists and government officials, potential political motivations, and criticism of the article's framing.