And obviously they shouldn't post anything about specific victims and private information gained as a reporter.

But "Swalwell grooms interns on Snapchat" is important information and doesn't violate anyone's right to privacy (except, you know, the groomer)

April 11, 2026 - 02:50 UTC

2
0
2
I have stories I’ve failed to get over the line, and it haunts me. But I look my sources in the eye and swear that their stories are theirs to tell. I tell them they can change their mind at any moment and I’ll honor it, until the very last minute before it goes to press. I have to mean that.
3
0
24
If a company is dumping ooze into a river you can do something, like call the EPA, even if you don't get enough evidence to get the story over the line

I don't know your stories. But there are often ways to act *outside* of being a journo that doesn't involve the victims or violates their privacy
1
0
1
If this was the bar in every facet of journalism it would make sense, but it seems outright bizarre that seemingly MOST of political reporting these days is anonymous source slop: “some guy says whatever about whoever”

Only THIS kind of story requires a Warren Commission of evidence it seems
1
0
3
But what is the *right* thing to do? If the man goes on to hurt other girls/women, the victim's reluctance to report is hurting not just them, but a constant stream of new victims. She's traumatized, unable to fight back. But you *know*. Doctors have to report abuse. Why not journalists?
0
0
1
Isn’t that what the last couple of weeks of the drumbeat was? It was Cheyenne trying to get people on the record but being dismissed as either Katie Porter pawns or collaborators with Trump loving fascists?
1
0
1
I guess Cheyenne helped then? I didn't follow that story closely.

I think it's good people other than the victims took on some of the personal risk. The victims went through enough.

It'd be real cool if some of the men who knew what was going on also took on some personal risk.
1
0
0