@tpoppapuff: Maybe. But we don't know that. My issue isn't that the source(s) is anonymous. My issue is that Austin didn't explain why he granted them anonymity, or why he didn't release the original documents outlining the specs of the NEO. Like I've said before, it's basic journalistic practice to provide this information. And I haven't talked about the fact that Austin didn't provide any details whatsoever about why the sources would be in a position to know this information in the first place.
Just as an example of what I'm talking about: http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anonymity/ , http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-editor-the-disconnect-on-anonymous-sources.html
@thiefsie: I dont think anything about what the motives are behind this, and I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the story. I don't know why GB isn't providing the documents or the sources names. I'm sure they have good reasons. But we should know those reasons. It's basic journalism that if you have a reference document, and are publishing information about that document, you release it along with the story or provide compelling reasons why you can't. Similarly with providing anonymity to sources. Sources don't just get anonymity. The default should be that sources *do not* receive anonymity. They should only receive it if there are reasons for giving it to them, and your readers should be aware of what those reasons are.
@rvone: It's how journalism works? Unless there's a good reason you're withholding documents or information (including source names), you shouldn't be doing it. I don't know what the reasons are for Austin withholding this information. They might be great reasons! But he should explain why he's doing it. It's just basic journalistic standards.
@thiefsie: When you leak information about an unannounced project, it has nothing to do with an NDA. An NDA is put in place when a company voluntary gives out information to the media. The media can choose to accept the terms of having that information and sign the NDA, or not. In this case, since the information was leaked, they didn't have to sign an NDA to receive the info.
Since Austin said they have the documents to prove what he's saying, they should either release them, or explain why they can't. Furthermore, he should explain why he's providing anonymity to his sources. It might be obvious, but it also might not be. For example, maybe the sources want anonymity because this is all a PR stunt by Sony, but they want to have plausible deniability and make this seem like leak. That wouldn't be a legitimate reason to give them anonymity.
dusker's comments