Addendum: A significant exception to that rule is when the journalist themselves is the source or an involved party in the story, e.g. when Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic was included in a Signal chat with US government officials discussing war plans: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-a...

In such cases, the journalist likely will publish raw data/screenshots, since they're functioning both as the source and the reporter.

How? I’m not going to name agencies or security products if that’s what you mean.

It was a US government owned/issued computer. It had 9 fully overlapping/redundant endpoint security products running. Opening websites took ages. Using specialized apps like IDEs was unlikely to fully or consistently work. As I understand it, this situation is not unusual in government/heavily regulated workstation environments elsewhere.

> the "bad" minority will continue using the underground version?

…which they already did before this market was made mainstream.

I posted this elsewhere in this thread, but the “it’ll just go underground” claim seems silly. The negative effects of driving a gambling market to the economic fringe are already happening in the mainstream market: fixing, extortion, death threats, etc.

What makes you think that driving betting underground (which means far fewer people will participate) would be worse than the status quo?

Narrowly (skipping the question of whether this journalist should have included copies of evidence), GP is right: most journalists with verified source material quote it/assert what it contains, rather than linking or copying it verbatim. That’s how serious journalism has always worked. The reputation of a newsroom is understood to back up a reporter’s assertion about their source.

Whether or not it should work that way is a separate question. But claiming that raw sources not being included is cause for suspicion is incorrect.