In light of the last week, it has come to my attention that I never really gave you guys any insight into my reporting and how I handle information.
This is something I should have done sooner, admittedly. Being open and honest, amd allowing you guys to engage with our reporting, and to be able to question me, is importsnt I feel to the high-trust enviornment I try to maintain here.
We have an ethics policy, a reporting system, but never really a backroom look at how I handle things here, especially when it comes to rumors and leaks. This has been a topic I'm sure many of you have noticed me get into over the last week, but it is a reoccuring problem I have had.
I am torn, a bit, at how others in the space conduct themselves. It started when the DIS was delayed. It was my first time really having embargoed information, and so I was extremely cautious and protective to how I spoke to not get too deep into it.
I safeguarded it like the Ark of the Covenant, this super secret collection of information entrusted to me under the understanding I could better report on things if I was given time to sit and digest. So inagine my surprise when, almost as soon as the delay was announced, people started ‘scooping’ out details at a time, sometimes nearly half the documents major points, under he guise of ‘unknown sources’
When questioned, I was further surprised that to learn that among my journalist friends (not all mind you but most) I was being the weird one, amd the mentality that the delay gave a free pass to leak stuff was apparently something many people had.
This shocked me. I couldn't imagine the idea of being entrusted with something so significant only to just leak it under the guise of beong first and getting headlines. Since then, I notice it more and more. Lax standards when it comes to verification, obvious outright gossiping under the guise of serious reporting, like eith fighter numbers this week, which by the way, yeah they were 100% false and should have likely never been reported if someone took even a bit of time to run the verification and questioning gauntlet.
It annoys me, deeply, but I don't want to make this a rant. I do think its fantastic more publications are engaging positively on Defence, but with that comes a whole lot of ill-prepared people and institutions who aren't necessarily equipped or prepared to discuss some topics at hand.
So, instead of whining and complaining, I thought I could go a bit into how exactly I handle reporting, my thoughts, and the loose system I have to do things. I did this on X, and thought why not here. It also gives me a direct chance to engage with all of you on things and see how you feel.
Especially because some of you were upset when I said I wouldn't leak any submarine choice rumors. That's a handline for me, and honestly I don't wanna know who won until day of. I don't get a lot of fun hype like that. I hear about 99% of announcements, and sometimes I just wanna have fun and be surprised.
So I am going out of my way to avoid it, though I still expect it to be leaked. Hopefully this gives you guys a better look into my mindset and how I do things here. Take of it what you will.
Four Source Verification
This to me is the minimum amount of people needed to reasonably verify a rumor could be legit, and I can't stress this enough, you need to know what are good and bad sources on topics. You don't ask a Navy guy about an Air Force project. You also need to learn how to rank. Industry? Can be good for some info but always air caution.
Lobbyists I find are far more likely to have up to date info. Obviously those involved in projects, if you know them, have highest status to credibility. This is the bare minimum to consider posting anything in my opinion. There is a lot of trial, error, and learning when it comes to building a source pool.
To me it is the ultimate test of your judgement and skills in identification. It is very hard for me personally to sit and explain how to do this, or how to judge sources. I think it is an aquired, learnt skill you develop over time and trial. You come into it as you go.
Engagement
Engagement is important. You should ask around to people you trust and know have authority and make sure the info should be shared. It's absolutely critical in my mind to have general confidants you can regularly go to and say "Hey, is it okay if I talk about this?" No one is the same. That is as blunt as I can be
Some folks love their projects being discussed and out there, other's dont and would rather keep it down low. Have respect for those who dont. It's also good to maintain open channels so people can come and say something if you stepped out of line.
I have had people ask me not to comment on stuff, or certain projects. So you don't. Simple as. Have a network who can guide you and steer you in good directions. Truth is, lots of folks don't care about project updates. Lots of folks love their projects being discussed. Projects are the safest thing to discuss. If numbers change or requirements, rarely is there issues covering it and thats why its 95% of our rumors.
Timelines and Numbers
Saying stuff is set to be awarded soon is fine. The DND openly discusses it a lot, and stuff like the DCB try to give rough estimates. If you say X is gonna be awarded in the Summer, few people really care. Industry tends to get these updates anyways.
Projects are again generally safe to discuss. Most don't care if info is out there. It doesn't effect much, and industry that matters usually knows. If LUV numbers change, no one really cares if you meantion that publicly. You're safe to play a bit loose here but always maintain some distinction. Again engagement is good, but here you have some good freedom to report without much issue. Never been one for me, and believe me I do this every week and know lots of people.
Predictions
It is not wrong to predict. If an announcement is coming, and you can reasonably guess what it is, than you are at little fault. An Armoured Vehicle announcement in London aint really keeping things secret. It's also fine to speculate on announcements. Just have caution to make sure you aren't breaking the other rules in doing so. It happens. You're human, you get excited and happy on this stuff. Sometimes you think stuff is public and it isn't. Its okay to make that mistake.
Winners
No winners. Ever. You don't announce winners ahead of the announcement. That is not your victory to claim. It is not your announcement to make. There are people who wait in excitement to see their project announced, and spoiling that ruins the experience for them.
A caveat is if you don't expect an announcement to be made. That changes things a bit. There are some procurements not announced, and some that fall to the wayside. Those give a bit of flexibility. Is it yours to say if they won't? I tend to say yes, it's okay. See LUV Phase I.
That gives a bit more wiggle room. For the sake of analysis as well, if you know an option is favoured, and you can see the signs, than that is fine. IFM as example, doesn't take much to connect the dots. There is again a difference between analysis and leaking results.
Knowing that though is part of learning as a commentator. As a disclosure, a few months ago I mentioned what platforms were favoured for MCAV initially, and I had someone come to me and ask to not discuss it again because it could set a bad precedent before the RFI was out.
That is an example of stepping to far into that grey, and you will. You're human. You'll make mistakes. When someone comes to you, and expresses those issues, than you respect that it comes from somewhere personal and leave it.
Political Stuff
Political stuff is more open, but air caution. Know that political stuff is tricky and harsh. It is also not worth your time usually. I spoke about the CDS and VCDS shuffle. It flipped on me. That makes me look bad, but also you gotta have caution.
Those rumors can be fine, but they are risky and you should still be respectful to peoples livelihoods. Always have respect for people in your reporting. If it is out there, and out there heavily though? You have to make that call. You have to take that risk.
Embargoes
Dont break Embargoes. You’re kind of a jerk if you do. Just dont. Dont try to hide it with sources. Dont try to hide it with 'unknowns'. I see through you, and believe me so do the DND people. Its a jerk move to so easily betray trust under some guise of ‘Journalism’ or ‘Accountability", and like above it can really spoil or ruin it for people involved.
I get people wanna be first and wanna get their narratives out, which most MSM shouldnt worry about. Worry about your analysis. Lots of places still lacking there… I just don't like it. It would make me feel bad to do something like that, especially if you work hard to build up enough trust as an independent brand.
Some of us don't have billion dollars backing us and institutional leverage, but I prefer it that way. Its a two way street with folks I deal with, and I think that's better for everyone.
Mistakes
Admit mistakes. You will fuck up. You will be wrong. You should have apology posts. You should clarify. Even if no one notices, if you notice? Get it out there you were wrong, because someone will use that false info and they'll spread it as fact. That hurts the whole space.
At the end of the day, as someone who 'leaks' stuff every week, more than some publications in a year, I am not sinless. Far from it, which is why you need a good system in place. No one is forcing you to do that stuff. You take that responsibility, and you need to own it. It also means having personal accountability.
There are a million Greys areas, and each one needs some scrutiny and personal reflection. If you want a recent example, one newsletter I outlined various promotions that had happened. They were never gonna be majorly public. They were already out there and announced.
I still spent two weeks engaging with folks on if it was okay, and after a good six people I trusted highly, who all believed it was fine and no one would really mind or care, then I decided I had the mandate to post about it.
You get more respect admitting your wrongs than you ever do being right. Thats how we build a community that can trust itself.
A Few Small Tips and Thoughts
On a sidenote, RFI releases are pretty telegraphed, but air extreme caution. A million things delay RFI. It usually isnt worth saying something is coming unless certain. I have yet to know anyone who cared that I mentioned an RFI is coming, again these things aint really secret.
Sometimes they are, and you don't go out of your way to talk about them, but I have never heard one person who has ever cared about me having "X will release an RFI soon" in the newsletter. That also comes with acknowledgement. When you engage, you'll learn whats okay to say.
Again Projects, so long as it isnt spoiling results and you have mot been asked, are generally perfectly fine to discuss, and sometimes you get encouraged to talk about things! There is no one I have met who has had an issue on the projects side.
Might shock, but they're all kinda nerds who wanna see their cool project discussed and geeked over. Turns out people like fun conversations and seeing people engage! Its part of a healthy community and good transparency.
I’ll also add that in some cases, early rumors becoming reality in hindsight can definetly feel wrong. Like we reported the AEWC sole-source in February? That’s when it was fledgling rumors, and it came true, and now I feel like I was a bit rude for posting about it.
At the end of the day this stuff isnt universal. You need your own system that works for you, and you need to find yourself in your own self-reflections. You will struggle. You'll have internal conflict. You will have to make hard choices on what you do.
This isn't meant to say how you should do things, but for some of you in this space who are new, or who are just learning, I hope my experiences can give you something to work off of. For the rest of you, I hope this gives you a deeper look at my mentality and how we've evolved our reporting here.
We've come a long way since we started expanding in October. I am not a journalist, a reporter, an acaedmic. I didn't have anything but myself. All I did, I learnt on the fly. So take solice in the fact that you can learn! You can always do better, but it starts with wanting to do it.
A note of caution re relying on the CAF as the main source of validation for what's happening. Sometimes decisions are made at the political level without the CAF being in the loop. So, "the CAF isn't planning for X" doesn't mean the political side isn't considering X.