I've read articles now on three news sites about this. All of them cite "CDC analysts" but provide no names or credible sources. If these analysts are upset, why aren't they providing their names? Why do newspapers allow these anonymous sources?
And unlike the tech industry, people in these positions don't job-hop constantly.
They want the public to know about this [I can think of many unfavorable adjectives] behavior. But they don't want to lose their careers, put their families at economic risk, etc.
Acting as (responsible) intermediary in such circumstances is a time-honored and proven role of journalism, in the U.S. and other countries.
P.S. I'll add that the U.S. scientific community had a good, close look at such behavior as a preview, in the neighboring country of Canada under the Harper government.
To the point where they were collaborating with Canadian scientists to back up data before the Harper government erased it.
They are not merely reacting emotionally. They've seen Conservatives' (on either side of the border) play book for this for nigh on a decade, at least.
As I understand it, the journalists have been supplied with copies of the specific document(s).
They can then ask the relevant administration whether the document is genuine.
If the adminsitration does not deny the legitimacy of the document, there's your proof. (These are not classified documents. There's no "we can't respond" cover for them, in this case.)
This is also a common journalistic practice.
I'd also expect them to pursue multiple sourcing for the story. Although, with the document(s) at hand, and the course I described possible, that's not strictly necessary.
P.S. I'll add that, more broadly, document sharing is not without risk. The government as well as private entities have taken to distributing "marked" documents that can be tracked back to original recipients. Not in all nor anything like the majority of cases. Just some specific ones.
That marking can be overt, or covert. The latter case can include slight variations in content that, particularly if someone has only one exemplar, can be difficult to detect and at best only suspected.
Anyway... speaking VERY generally, a central if sometimes unspoken role of ANY organization is mitigating risk to its participants.
I would not expect anything different from journalism. I would not expect people to take on unnecessary risk. When people name themselves in such circumstances, it's to accomplish something additional. That doesn't seem to be needed, here. I don't see much reasoned doubt of the story, and I've yet to see a denial from "the government".
Ok, too much caffeine, here. Sorry for my runaway keyboard.
P.P.S. I can't yet reply to your reply, but I wanted to say, "fair enough".
With the caveat I already added, above -- apparently, while you were replying -- that original documents sometimes have to be presented in an information-retaining representation, where overt or covert marking may betray the source.
(For example, the woman in Georgia who landed in jail... this past year or so. Win-something or other? The press didn't screen the documents she provided, and they were readily traced back to her. Then apparently corroborated by FBI using system access logs. Apparently, because at the time I last read about it, methodologies were not being confirmed.)
economics drives everything. we need a different incentive structure for news, and the readers are probably the only ones that can effect change.
It seems like the journalist should have worked to get a recording or at least multiple sources.
I think the bigger risk is that the source is wrong. Being able to confirm with multiple sources isn’t just about proving yourself as a journalist, but about verifying the story.
I look forward to the follow up stories to confirm or deny what this is about.
Like I said, HHS already has statements saying “that didn’t happen like that” so it’s an issue of HHS credibility vs. New York Times. Having better sources would remove this question.
Fortunately, there are many ways to get hard copy / digital copy without traceability (eg, Wikileaks but not Reality Winner).