The Way It Is

I've always admired David Vestal's stance on non-disclosure agreements: he doesn't sign them. He won't accept information with any limitations attached. As he puts it, "I'm in the disclosure business."

Unfortunately perhaps, most journalists in any field know things they can't talk about. Either they themselves have promised not to disclose, or the information was passed along privately by a friend or industry insider who was sworn to secrecy and who has asked not to be betrayed. 

It's not like these are matters of national security or scientific urgency, and it's not like there are legal consequences. We're playing in a relatively benign sandbox.

However, a betrayal is still a betrayal, and people who betray their sources or their friends lose them. Some things I know I just can't talk about; that's just the way it is.

And now I won't say anything more about that.

Mike

Comments

[Mike Shimwell]

Cryptic:)

[Jeff Damron]

Got it.

[Edie Howe]

"...And now I won't say anything more about that."

Yer sucha fricken' tease, Mike.

;-)

Edie
Yeah, I'm wondering what prompted this post. But you're right. Secrets are secrets, and betrayal suxxors, big time. You can keep your secrets with only a minimum of teasing-grief from me.

[Bob Keefer]

Vestal is primarily known as a photographer, not a journalist, so that's an easy stance for him to take.

Sometimes the world is more complicated.

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Back when I worked in the high-end audio press, I was never asked to sign a formal non-disclosure agreement. I was, however, often asked to verbally agree to informal ones, and I usually did, as it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to do my job otherwise.

Needless to say, I suspect this practice may have changed over the past two decades and I'll bet that formal NDAs are commonplace now. (sigh)

[Branimir]

What is in the person that makes it impossible not to taunt other people?

Next time, if you value your reader's well being, do not post posts like this one.

[Dirk]

This means the Fuji X100 bw only version is being released, right? Right!?

[Rusty]

I guess we will just have to tune in Tuesday.

[JR]

So, you are saying that there is something coming out soon, you can't tell us about? Got it:-)

[Dave Stewart]

The cat has been placed amongst the pigeons. All manner of wild speculation could follow. Now what have we been discussing recently? In simple, B&W terms...

[Maarten B.]

Hahahahaha

[Bulent]

It's about Pentax; isn't it? Will remain just between us two; I will not disclose! OK?

[Grant]

So, you're saying the next Ricoh GXR module is.... A B&W only sensor. I knew "one of the worst things I ever wrote", was a lead up to something.

[Mike Johnston]

Branimir,
I'm not "taunting" anyone. I'm answering some questions in the most forthright way possible. The people who are expecting an answer will know it's their answer. It's not directed at you.

Mike

[Jim Bullard]

It's eating you though, I can tell. :-)
Can you at lest give us a hint as to how long before it stops being secret?

[sneye]

After reading this post, I don't know anything I didn't know before, yet I do: I now know there is something I don't know. Well, I knew that anyway but thank you for trying.

[Robert Roaldi]

I know it too. But I'm not telling either.

[Mel]

Whatever the reason for this post, you can always use the loophole popularized in the past decade of telling as someone "not authorized to speak about the subject." I love this one - all it takes is one principled journalist to deny access to the press by someone obviously in the leaks business ("Your aren't authorized? I don't want to hear it and if you tell me I'll assume you're lying.") and the whole carnival of privileged information starts folding up and sneak away into the night.

[Lynn]

I think I get it...
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld

[Ken Ford]

John has a long moustache.

The chair is against the wall.

[phil]

I don't have a problem with most non-disclosure, after all, journalists must protect their sources.

However, like the 'superinjunctions' used in the UK, I find it disturbing when you're not allowed to disclose that there is a not-disclosure agreement. For me, that's disengenuous, it creates the false illusion of openness.

[Libby]

I know - you have both the new Canon and the new Nikon on your desk and you're sitting there admiring them ;-)

Seriously though - yes there's so much running amuck bu people who want to be the first with "the scoop". In the case of the camera rumor forums, it gets tiring seeing the same thing over and over just repackaged and regurgitated on one blog and them another.

I do some proprietary work for one company. They have never asked me to sign an NDA. Because they know me, they know imgs won't be posted to Flickr. They know images will not be posted to my blog. And above all, they know my lips are sealed with regards to any ancillary stuff, because really, to "regular people" it's all pretty much boring stuff anyway. Thanks for a somewhat interesting albeit bizarre post.

[Mark Sampson]

I will not confirm or deny it.

[David H.]

Sorry, I can't comment on that post.

[David]

It's funny that you would mention David Vestal, as I was thinking about him in the context of your poll on black-and-white-only digital cameras. For the last several years, I think that David has been primarily using an "entry level" DSLR Of course, he has no discipline problem when it comes to seeing in black and white!

I haven't quite figured out if I'm a potential customer for the b&w digital, but in filling out the poll, I decided to choose the entry level DSLR. If it's good enough for David, it's good enough for me.

(a different) David

[bambang]

do they lend you a Star trek teleporter Mike ?

[toto]

It's an open secret... everyone knows about it already. :)

[Peter Popp]

To be Rumsfeldian about it, there are unknown unknowns. That is to say, there are things we don't know that we don't know. And there are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know that we don't know. Your post changed it, whatever it is, from an unknown unknown to a known unknown. And I'm going to hell for quoting Rumsfeld.

Ken- nice Red Dawn reference.

[Paris]

M. Ford:

Les sanglots longs
Des violons
De l’automne
Blessent mon cœur
D’une langueur
Monotone.

Mike:
C'mon Mike. You can tell us.

[wtlloyd]

Lynn stole my comment.....

[crnigjuro]

Does this betrayal thingie have anything to do with this particular piece of news?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/87cbfc42-f612-11e0-bcc2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1aoDOz2gc

[Tom K.]

I know what this is about. The new Canon DSLR coming 10/18/11

Specs are right here:

1D/1Ds line is about to be amalgamated. (Name Unknown)
Full Frame
18mp
12 fps
61 AF Points
New Battery
Available in March
Price unknown, but I suspect more than the 1D Mark IV

[JL]

Well, as a sometime journalist, I can confirm that Vestal's stance is more effective than you might think. If someone asks me if they can go off the record, I usually just say, "Nope, sorry. If you don't want it in print, don't tell me about it." 9 times out of ten, they talk about what they were going to talk about anyway: people who have something to say usually have a hard time not saying it.

Moreover, there are ways of getting the information out without anyone getting hurt. And there's considerable room for negotiation: 'off the record', 'not for attribution' and 'on background' all mean different things (and no one can agree on what they mean, so it helps to be explicit).

That said, on those few occasions when I do let someone speak off the record, I have to agree: 'don't burn a source' is pretty good advice, both morally and professionally.

[G]

Cryptic indeed. I hope this doesn't have anything to do with the comment I posted under the missing FF leica option, which was apparently rejected by the editor. Of course, you won't be able to say. I didn't mean any trouble with it, just curious.