Skip to content

The Deliberate Leak Test

Why It Matters

Leaks are weapons. The leaker chooses timing, what to include, what to exclude, and whom to leak to. Sophisticated leakers use journalists to pursue agendas: destroy rivals, manipulate markets, influence policy, or distract from other issues. Treating leaks as neutral information delivery ignores that you're being used. Understanding the leaker's motivation helps you assess: Is this information complete or selectively edited? Is timing designed to maximize damage? Are you being used to settle scores? Should you pursue this story, ignore it, or investigate the leaker?

The Key Move

When receiving leaked information, before investigating the content, investigate:

  1. Who benefits from publication now?
  2. Who has access to this information? (This limits suspects.)
  3. What's the leaker's likely motivation? (Revenge, conscience, competitive advantage, distraction from other scandal?)
  4. What's missing? (If these are selected emails, what emails aren't included? If it's financial data, what transactions aren't shown?)
  5. Can you verify authenticity independently? Then decide: publish the story, publish a meta-story about the leak itself, or investigate why someone wants you to publish this now.

Classic Application

Steele Dossier during 2016 election. The dossier was opposition research initially funded by political opponents, then leaked to press. Sophisticated outlets investigated the leak: Who commissioned it? (Political opponents.) Why leak now? (Election timing.) What's the sourcing? (Secondhand intelligence claims, mostly unverifiable.) What can be independently verified? (Very little.) Some outlets published, treating it as newsworthy regardless of motivation. Others investigated the leak itself, publishing meta-stories about opposition research and information warfare. The leak's motivation was at least as important as its content.

Surprising Application

Startup rumors and "anonymous sources" about competitors. When you hear negative information about a competitor from anonymous sources ("I heard they're running out of money" or "key engineers are leaving"), investigate the rumor source: Who benefits from this spreading? (Direct competitors, rejected investors, disgruntled ex-employees.) What can be verified? (Funding status via public filings, hiring via LinkedIn.) Is timing suspicious? (Right before a fundraise or product launch.) Often rumors are strategic information warfare, not factual reporting. Understanding the source prevents both acting on false information and spreading it.

Failure Modes

Becoming paranoid and rejecting all leaks (some leakers are genuinely motivated by public interest). Not investigating leaks because "the content is newsworthy regardless of motive" (true, but motive affects how you investigate and frame the story). Exposing leaker to prove you investigated motive (this burns sources and prevents future leaking). Assuming hostile motive means false content (even score-settling can involve true information). Not checking if you're being used to legitimize information that's published elsewhere first (laundering).

Go Deeper

Feldstein, "Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson, and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture" on leak warfare. Poitras, "Citizenfour" (film) on Snowden leaks and journalistic vetting. Sifry, "WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency" on leak investigation methodology.