The Iowa caucus app debacle highlights something about journalism (and especially risk-focused beats like cybersecurity) that I want to expand on for a minute.
Part of my job is to ask people about the risks they're taking and the criticism they've received from experts who specialize in studying and mitigating those risks.
This inevitably leads to a lot of bland reassurances and sharp dismissals, especially from spokespeople.
This inevitably leads to a lot of bland reassurances and sharp dismissals, especially from spokespeople.
Reassurances:
"We're confident in our security."
"We've consulted with leading experts."
"We've taken countless precautions."
"We've tested that."
Dismissals:
"Your sources don't know how we do things here."
"That's not a realistic scenario."
"We're confident in our security."
"We've consulted with leading experts."
"We've taken countless precautions."
"We've tested that."
Dismissals:
"Your sources don't know how we do things here."
"That's not a realistic scenario."
When you're asking spokespeople for powerful or famous organizations about hypothetical problems, their emphatic reassurances or dismissals can give you pause and make you doubt the reasonableness of your questions.
Indeed, spokespeople's answers are often designed to do that.
Indeed, spokespeople's answers are often designed to do that.
This is especially challenging if (1) you're a young reporter talking to veterans of their field/industry and (2) the very questions you're asking can, if poorly handled, contribute to a problem like a lack of public confidence (as election officials love to remind us).
As I said, every journalist faces this problem to some degree, but it's especially acute for people who report on potential risks and dangers.
We don't want to gloss over threats, but we also don't want to overhype them, and spokespeople exploit that latter fear.
We don't want to gloss over threats, but we also don't want to overhype them, and spokespeople exploit that latter fear.
But the Iowa situation illustrates how important it is to ask the questions every time.
Sometimes the spokesperson's authoritative reassurances are just wrong. Sometimes the problems were bigger than they thought (or wanted to admit) and you were right to think in those terms.
Sometimes the spokesperson's authoritative reassurances are just wrong. Sometimes the problems were bigger than they thought (or wanted to admit) and you were right to think in those terms.
Organizations have an incentive to make reporters think we're tinfoil-hatting when we ask if they're fully prepared, because they're often under-prepared.
And the urge to think "Given the stakes & the inevitable fallout, they can't possibly be messing this up" is strong.
And the urge to think "Given the stakes & the inevitable fallout, they can't possibly be messing this up" is strong.
I guess what I'm saying, especially to my fellow cyber reporters, is that Iowa should be a wakeup call: our instincts are right, the ludicrousness of not preparing doesn't mean that everyone will prepare, and we need to keep asking the annoying questions.
