The last few weeks have resurrected a longstanding debate on how journalists & their readers should interpret, scrutinise, and report on intelligence-based claims that are presented without evidence. It is not a straightforward issue. 🧵
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1489289541689221120
On the one hand, claims made without evidence should be treated sceptically. Big ones especially so. Governments need not be lying to misperceive or misunderstand things. On the other hand, it is facile to assume, automatically, that every situation is essentially Iraq 2002-03.
In some cases, and increasingly, open-source intelligence (👇) can corroborate or disprove government claims. This applies to Russia and the West alike, though their track record is not equivalent.
economist.com/briefing/2021/…
economist.com/briefing/2021/…
In other cases, governments cannot realistically reveal details which put sources and methods of collection. That is reasonable. It is also reasonable for journalists to push them hard on this issue (👇). There is no magic way to square this circle.
https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez/status/1489321450251169798?s=20&t=L6PwqseGn4Jm-WPSVcKiCA
But there are ways to assess plausibility & credibility. Does gov't have an incentive to distort or lie? How many other gov'ts concur? Is it a fragment of intelligence or all-source assessment? Does it come with analytic confidence rating ("moderate confidence"). If not, why not?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
