Jennifer Valentino-DeVries
@jenvalentino.bsky.social
New York Times reporter on the investigations desk, focusing on technology and data journalism. Reach me on Signal at jenval.06 https://www.nytimes.com/by/jennifer-valentino-devries
It's also an argument for JUST DON'T FUCKING SLEEP WITH YOUR SOURCES. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
November 26, 2025 at 11:59 PM
It's also an argument for JUST DON'T FUCKING SLEEP WITH YOUR SOURCES. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
Gotta sneak away to the journalist group chat like an addict, at this point.
November 26, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Gotta sneak away to the journalist group chat like an addict, at this point.
Dude. I think the line between "questionable" and "wild malpractice" was crossed miles back, all around.
November 22, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Dude. I think the line between "questionable" and "wild malpractice" was crossed miles back, all around.
Imagine knowing literally anything about guns, or boats, or people, or ... how to count.
November 22, 2025 at 12:20 AM
Imagine knowing literally anything about guns, or boats, or people, or ... how to count.
An unexpected number of people are seeing this, so here is a gift link to the actual article: www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/s...
When an Eel Climbs a Ramp to Eat Squid From a Clamp, That’s a Moray (Published 2021)
www.nytimes.com
November 7, 2025 at 7:42 PM
An unexpected number of people are seeing this, so here is a gift link to the actual article: www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/s...
Yes, thanks! I thought I was just replying in an individual thread that would be seen by basically zero people.
November 7, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Yes, thanks! I thought I was just replying in an individual thread that would be seen by basically zero people.
This is also one of my favorite things! Along with the subject getting caught in a clear lie and the journalist demonstrating this by calmly printing the contradictions one after the other.
October 30, 2025 at 2:16 PM
This is also one of my favorite things! Along with the subject getting caught in a clear lie and the journalist demonstrating this by calmly printing the contradictions one after the other.
I just read this whole brief because I was very furrowed-brow about exactly that question. And that's how it reads for, like, 28 of the 30 pages. But he turns it around at the end. I think his point is that if the president is prohibited from sending the military, he can't just send in the Guard.
October 29, 2025 at 9:03 PM
I just read this whole brief because I was very furrowed-brow about exactly that question. And that's how it reads for, like, 28 of the 30 pages. But he turns it around at the end. I think his point is that if the president is prohibited from sending the military, he can't just send in the Guard.