OK. Let's say that I'm someone with some secrets to leak

[MineralMan]

about the Trump administration, a grand jury investigation, or the inner workings of some government agency. Let's just say that. Let's also say that what I have is really, really important and needs to be known right away and by as many people as possible.

So, what do I do about that? Who do I contact? What would be the best way to leak my crucial information about what I know?

It's important information, and it should be known by the public, but leaking stuff is, well, risky for someone in my position. So here's a poll for DUers to tell me where I should turn so my information gets spread but I don't get exposed and have to face some sort of consequences. I trust DU, see, so I thought I'd ask. Which of the following should I choose as the best place to leak my information?

I'll rely on DU's advice in this matter and will transmit my information immediately to whatever outlet DU recommends, buleeve me!

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	New York Times
	1 (50%)
	Washington Post
	1 (50%)
	CNN
	0 (0%)
	The Guardian
	0 (0%)
	The Intercept
	0 (0%)
	Wikileaks
	0 (0%)
	Claude Taylor's Twitter Account
	0 (0%)
	Louise Mensch's Twitter Account
	0 (0%)
	Alex Jones
	0 (0%)
	The White House
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bearsfootball516]

1. Honestly

Wapo has a reputation like no other. I'd go to them.

[FM123]

2. So I voted for Washington Post,

but now I'm thinking Rachel Maddow......

[MGKrebs]

3. I see what you are doing...

and it's a good illustration of what is probably happening.
Anyone with any sense who wants to leak something significant is not going to leak it to someone who will immediately just post it on twitter and move on. What would be the point?

I've been assuming that someone like Mensch may have decent sources but lacks the resources or will to follow up on anything so she just throws it up into the wind for someone else to grab. But now I suspect her sources are more like people at or connected to WaPo (or similar) who are aware of a story that isn't ready to print yet but they throw her a bone every now and then, maybe to put it out in the public to see if something new shakes loose, or just because she bought them a drink, who knows. Sometimes they eventually pan out and sometimes they don't.

[librechik]

4. yep

It's her site. She can say anything she wants. And people know that. They shouldn't expect subpoena-level information from a blog, no matter how well-supported.

But anyone is also allowed to fill in the dots. Common sense is free, if fallible.

[Warpy]

5. All the first four would do

since they all employ fact checkers who would double check my credentials and the probability the story I gave them is true.

I wouldn't bother with anyone who doesn't employ fact checkers, just not worth the time or effort or risk to my stellar career.