Was this corporate spokesperson authorized to talk to this outlet about this topic? Just because they’re a spokesperson doesn’t mean they can talk freely.
A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
Because The Verge wants them to return their calls. It’s not like it matters. Spokespeople aren’t the ones making decisions. It’s the C-suits, which is publicly available.
Actually, yeah. Otherwise, you fuck up whistleblowing. They could be in the position, realize what’s happening is wrong, be documenting it, trying to get out, etc…
Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to grant whistleblowers anonymity without granting it to corporate spokespeople providing statements on behalf of the company? You’re a fucking idiot
What the fuck is this? We’re granting corporate spokespeople anonymity now?
You give it to whoever asks for it or you never get another source again.
This isn’t a “source”. This is a corporate spokesperson
…its both
Was this corporate spokesperson authorized to talk to this outlet about this topic? Just because they’re a spokesperson doesn’t mean they can talk freely.
Yes, that’s what a spokesperson is. Did you read the article? If it was a leak that would have been stated.
That’s not what they do according to their own ethics statement
https://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement
I’m not reading that. What are you saying?
Take the link and scroll down to the section titled “ON BACKGROUND”
I still don’t get it. Nothing there says a spokesperson is not a source. Which is good because saying such a thing would make absolutely no sense.
A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
Once again, none of this contradicts what I said.
Uhh, isn’t that kinda against the whole point of being a spokesperson in the first place? To put a name and a face behind a message?
Dunno why The Verge plays along.
Because The Verge wants them to return their calls. It’s not like it matters. Spokespeople aren’t the ones making decisions. It’s the C-suits, which is publicly available.
The anti evil operations team has done this in the past.
What the fuck is “the anti evil operations team”? That sounds like corpospeak for a team that does deeply evil shit
Actually, yeah. Otherwise, you fuck up whistleblowing. They could be in the position, realize what’s happening is wrong, be documenting it, trying to get out, etc…
Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to grant whistleblowers anonymity without granting it to corporate spokespeople providing statements on behalf of the company? You’re a fucking idiot