I fail to see the difference between the New York Times and Wikileaks.

[alberg]

I fail to see the difference between the New York Times and Wikileaks.

The New York Times publishes information that reveals the secret collaboration between the US and Israel in developing the Stuxnet Worms that destroyed Iran’s centrifuges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=stuxnet&st=cse

Wikileaks publishes information that reveals the secret funding sources for terrorism inside Saudi Arabia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/world/middleeast/06wikileaks-financing.html?ref=saudiarabia

Why is the New York Times referred to as a Journalist Organization while Wikileaks is referred to as a Terrorist Organization?

What’s the difference?

[BeFree]

1. Friends and enemies

NYT is a friend of the PTB (Powers That Be) and wikileaks is an enemy of the PTB.

[treestar]

2. The NYT gets their information legitimately

they don't break laws regarding classified information or hack private companies for their confidential information.

[reorg]

3. How do you know?

And what laws were those again that Wikileaks broke?

[treestar]

4. The NYT is a legit newspaper that has existed for a long, long time

There may be people who do things wrong on occasion, but the whole idea of their existence is not based on hacking into classified or confidential information.

As for the laws, do some basic research and you'll find that classified documents exist, there is a good reason for them and that society in general agrees. Companies can sue for damages due to release of confidential information.

[reorg]

9. IOW you don't know

That's okay, but why would you make up stuff like Wikileaks is "hacking into classified information"? You know very well that they don't. They have been sued by some companies but were never convicted of anything.

[treestar]

29. They are dealing in our nation's classified information

Whatever. They could be putting us in danger. they are not entitled to decide what parts of our government's information gets out. You'd have to dislike our government and our system quite a bit in order to allow some random person to get to decide what gets out.

[bahrbearian]

11. Judith Miller? Legit?

[alberg]

21. A perfect example of how not to be a journalist

She was spoon-fed inaccurate information by the government and never bothered (didn't want?) to check it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't have any checks and balances in journalism. Wikileaks provides a check and a balance on the so called Main Stream Media.

[treestar]

24. So that one case makes the NYT illegitimate?

I don't think so. That's just silly.

[alberg]

14. The “whole idea of their existence” is to report the truth – that is what journalism is

The “whole idea of their existence” is to report the truth – that is what journalism is (or should be) about.

Who decides what is “legitimate” – the ruling class? The people who control the wealth and power? Legitimacy should be determined by competency and integrity. Is the information that they report accurate? Does the information they report allow citizens in a free society to make informed choices regarding how well or badly their leadership is protecting their interests?

Do some research and you’ll find that the majority of citizens would prefer a more open government in which special interests do not have disproportionate control over the foreign policy of their country – a control which often results in policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Companies and Governments are not synonymous – at least they should not be in a real Democracy.

[treestar]

26. the laws regarding classified information determine it

Laws passed in a Democratic system.

I really don't get the blind refusal to deal with that.

And civil law doctrines on confidential information. Courts allow companies to file documents under seal. Do you condemn that with the same fervor?

[alberg]

63. Classified information is published by news organiztions all the time.

Remember the Pentagon Papers?

[LanternWaste]

73. I imagine many people do not look at a law as being sacrosanct in and of itself

"I really don't get the blind refusal to deal with that..."

I imagine many people do not look at a law as being sacrosanct in and of itself, but rather the law is there to specifically provide for a system of justice. While at the same time, I also imagine many people do see a law as a holy and righteous thing, regardless of its possible offenses. :shrug:




Or (and somewhat apropos to this specific day)...
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

[ljm2002]

94. How long must an organization be in existence...

...before it is legitimate in your eyes?

Wikileaks just celebrated their 10th anniversary. Is that long enough? Or must they be 20 years old or more? When someone tries to start a news organization, how long must they wait before they are allowed to publish information that is provided to them by whistle blowers, by your standards?

They did not hack anything to get the information, it was provided to them by a third party. And you do know that Wikileaks is not a U.S. organization, right? So exactly what law, again, did they break?

[alberg]

5. We don't know the sources of many NYT stories because reporters won't reveal them.

If someone gives you information, gives it to you - you did not steal it, is that illegal?

Reporters get information "under the table" all the time. Remember All the President's Men? Remember Deep throat?

[treestar]

6. Well they don't generally hack into classified information

And if they did, it would be the same thing.

Deep throat volunteered his information. That's fine. He did not revealed classified information.

The whole problem with wikileaks fandom is people ignorantly pretending there is no such thing as classified information and that it is ipso facto a bad thing. It's almost embarrassing that our country has people that ignorant who will not even bother to listen and learn and get up on a high horse based on something entirely wrong.

[tekisui]

8. I ask again, when did wikileaks hack into a system for info?

[bread_and_roses]

12. What's embarassing is such blind defense of secrecy in the service of the industrial war machine

Do we the people have a right to know what our government is doing in our name or not? And do we have a free press or not?

Funny, I don't recall such passionate defense of government secrecy and lies and suppression of information like the killings of civilians in our imperial wars while Commander Codpiece sat in the WH.

[treestar]

30. Um, so there should be no classified information at all?

Or wikileaks should get to decide?

Do you even get the concept? That diplomats may want to communicate without the rest of the world knowing? How could we survive if say information about nuclear weapons were disseminated to the entire world?

What passionate defense of what government lies? You're just foaming at the mouth due to a generalized hatred of everything which wikileaks appears to appease.

[bread_and_roses]

39. Why should OUR Diplomats be able to communicate in secret?

And what government lies? They've been posted here - and all over the world, thanks to Wikileaks. No, there should be no "diplomatic secrets." Our elected leaders should not be able to say one thing in public and another at secret meetings with impunity. They are OUR servants. We absolutely have a right to know what deals they are making in our name.

Amateur psychoanalysis does nothing to forward your case - which as far as I can tell is to recommend a blind trust in TPTB - regardless of the evidence to the contrary, or the appalling history of same.

[geardaddy]

80. +1

[alberg]

56. Secrecy and Democracy are in inherent tension.

There is an inherent tension between the need for secrecy and the public’s right to know. Of course governments want to keep their secrets – sometimes legitimately and sometimes not. An organization devoted to reporting the truth is necessarily at odds with any organization that wants to conceal the truth. It is this check and balance that controls tyranny.

[alberg]

17. News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress

"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising."
~ Lord Northcliffe, British publisher 1865-1922

[rhett o rick]

18. The classification of government infor for the sole purpose of keeping the public ignorant

is wrong. A high percentage of so-called classified info is only to keep the public in the dark to the law breaking by our government. But many conservatives dont want to know the truth, they would rather live in ignorance.

Why do conservatives hate whistle-blowers?

[treestar]

31. OMG how delusional

Maybe we should just publish the nuclear codes. If you won't acknowledge a need for such information to be secret, you are merely consumed with hatred for our country and for people in general.

[rhett o rick]

65. You are losing it. I hate my country and people in general? You must not have a good

argument if you lower yourself to that level. I believe in an open democracy. I dont believe in having a government that is going to lie to me and hid their actions behind phony confidentially. Over classification of information is a security risk.

Why do conservatives hate whistle-blowers? Because they favor corporations over humans.

You get the strawman award of the day for your "Maybe we should just publish the nuclear codes."

[devilgrrl]

90. Oh shut up already - no one is listening to you.

eom

[leftynyc]

127. Speak for youself

He/She asked a very legitimate question. Should wiki be allowed to publish nuclear codes? The secret locations of people who are hiding from tyrannical governments? The thought there should be nothing secret is moronic.

[jotsy]

25. Like failing to check facts from partisan operatives regarding non profit organizations?

Or did the entire ACORN debacle escape your attention?

<http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7755>

[snot]

129. W/ all due respect, for all the disinfo I've seen printed about WL,

I've never before heard ANYONE allege they hacked anything.

Pls check your sources.

[pnwmom]

55. But the reporters know the identities -- whereas Wikileaks

will publish information submitted anonymously that cannot or will not be verified by anyone.

[rhett o rick]

66. Conservatives hate whistle-blowers because they put corporations above humans. nm

[pnwmom]

67. Uh. . . so? n/t

[alberg]

81. Wikileaks vets and verifies the info before they publish.

Wikileaks even offered the US government the chance to completely review the files before they were released, but the US refused.

[Luminous Animal]

123. Wikileaks does verify. That is why it can take a long time between release and publishing.

[tekisui]

7. When did wikileaks hack a private company?

When did wikileaks break the law to obtain info?

[jaxx]

10. Receiving stolen goods is breaking the law.

The leaked material was stolen.

[EFerrari]

13. No, it's not against the law for a news outlet to recieve classifed information. n/t

[jaxx]

19. WikiLeaks is no news outlet.

And are you absolutely sure it's not against the law to receive classified information that has obviously been stolen or it wouldn't be there? Theft of government property.

[EFerrari]

20. 1st Amendment protection. And yes, Wikileaks is a news broker. n/t

[jaxx]

32. 1st amendment doesn't cover criminal intent.

In the Manning/WikiLeaks case Manning stole the information with the intent to give it to WikiLeaks. He knew it was a crime to steal it and WikiLeaks knew it was a crime to receive stolen goods. With known criminal intent it becomes a crime.

[Hissyspit]

35. Nonsense.

[jaxx]

36. It isn't nonsense at all.

Criminal intent turns it into a crime. Manning knowingly committed the crime of theft of government property. WikiLeaks knowingly accepted the stolen goods. Remember, Manning was not an anonymous donor of information.

[fascisthunter]

44. not one thing that has been leaked was worthy of secrecy

We the People deserve a better more ethical government that doesn't use it's powers to hide shit like this from us. You want a fascist police state and a dishonest government, fine, but stop with the bullshit about treason. The real treason is coming from those who seek to silence the truth in a democracy. Too principled for you, too fucking bad!

[jaxx]

52. Why are you screaming treason at me when you are the one who said it?

Not everything the government does is for public discourse. It involves security for our people in the field and for our country. Seeing a fascist behind every keyboard must be troubling.

Too principled for you? Evidently.

[fascisthunter]

57. weird... you can hear screaming... you might wanna get that checked out

and, you'd better never complain about a government having too much power over people anywhere, especially here, unless of course you think this government has the right to do as it pleases without "We the People" voluntarily giving the power to do so.

I prefer a representative government.... as I said before, nothing that has been leaked was worthy of secrecy.

[jaxx]

59. You might want to not put words in my mouth the next time.

We have a representative government. I don't think you have the authority to decide what was, or wasn't, worthy of secrecy.

[fascisthunter]

62. as Citizens, yes "WE" should have that authority

Your glib remark regarding what authority "I" have is very telling. You love having a government that doesn't represent "US"(get it?) transparently. Should billionaires be able to get the government to work for them while screwing the rest of us? Whose side are you on? I know what side I'm on... your idea of a representative government is brainwashed garbage.

[jaxx]

70. Are you finished?

You made the statement as if you have the authority. You don't. The government does represent me and us more transparently than any before it in modern times. No, they're not going to tell you everything and they shouldn't. I'm on the side of the USA and how dare you infer anything else? Next you say I'm brainwashed.

If I were, I'd be on your team.

[fascisthunter]

74. the side of the USA... no, the side of a secretive government

that believes hiding unethical behavior is ok, when it is an abuse of power. Spin all ya want, but your idea of what representation is not going to be taken seriously, not by me.

You can have the last word, since it is important to you. We are done.

[alberg]

82. Ultimately, it is the citizens in a Democracy who decide what is or is not worthy of secrecy.

Anything else would not be a Democracy.

[alberg]

78. It's our government, it's our information.

[EFerrari]

105. Well, no. Journalists have 1st Amendment protection in this country

until people who think as you do find a way to get rid of it. Thanks, though.

[alberg]

27. Of course it's a news outlet.

[jaxx]

33. Not hardly.

[alberg]

85. Ask reporters, they'll tell you that it is.

[reorg]

37. It's not theft. If it were that easy to get at them, this angle would have been tried already

The government still has the files and can use them. You are confusing copyright violation with theft, different thing.

Ironically, it was a Harvard Law School professor in the New York Times who cleared up that Wikileaks won't be prosecuted for copyright violations either - at least with respect to the cables:

“This is less about stealing than it is about copying,” said John G. Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in Internet issues and intellectual property.

Intellectual property law criminalizes the unauthorized reproduction of certain kinds of commercial information, like trade secrets or copyrighted music, films and software files. But those categories do not appear to cover government documents, which by law cannot be copyrighted and for which there is no ordinary commercial market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

[jaxx]

42. Once the files are leaked they lose value to the owner.

It has nothing to do with copyright.

[reorg]

45. How so?

The government still has the files, the information is not lost, it has no commercial value.

What value has been lost? I would argue the information has become MORE valuable since it became publicly known.

[jaxx]

54. Look at the diplomatic leaks.

They are of no value now, they brought out things that didn't need to be known by the public and the world, but now are. Which means the information lost all value at that time. Not everything has commercial value, but diplomatic value in government classifieds is everywhere. It undermines this country to have our inner workings put out for public consumption and ridicule.

[reorg]

68. I don't care what you think "didn't need to be known"

Only those cables have been published that world-wide respected news outlets considered worth publishing, so the information must have been of some value to the public.

You still didn't explain how the value of that information was lost through its publication.

If you are angry about the ridicule, you need to go for damages instead of "theft".

[fatbuckel]

49. I suppose you would`nt have agreed with the way the Watergate scandal transpired as well?

[jaxx]

58. Watergate is not comparable to this.

It was a planned break in by a group against a political party. The Manning leaks are one person stealing classified info from the US government and passing that on to another entity.

[fatbuckel]

77. That was exposed by others. If nixon had his way,he would have kept it secret.

[treestar]

22. the information they have on banks?

Banks are private companies. I know they are widely hated here. But they are still private companies. What if wikileaks took your company's information?

[tekisui]

28. Wikileaks didn't take anyone's information. And, that isn't the claim

you made. You have provided no evidence to support your claim that wikileaks hacked into any system.

[devilgrrl]

93. I'd hate if I were doing something illegal and someone found out about it.

Who's paying you to defend banks?

[alberg]

98. If information comes to light that a company or a bank is breaking the law

do we prosecute? Obviously, a bank or company breaking the law would want to keep that info secret - right? So how do we get that information? If one of their employees leaks the info, are they a hero or a criminal? Good questions to ponder. But remember, we were the ones who established the principle at the end of World War 2 that "just following orders" was not a valid excuse for participating in crimes.

[rhett o rick]

15. NYT is a "corporation" therefore your devotion. WikiLeaks are whistleblowers. Why do conservatives

hate whistleblowers? Because they catch corporations breaking the law. Why do you side with corporations over human kind?

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. LOL!

[Hissyspit]

34. Oh, good god.

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Did they get the WickiLeads infor "legitimately"?

Bradley Manning gives the info to WikiLeaks. Wikeleaks gives it to the Times (and others) who publish it. How is one "illegal" and the other "legal"?

[fatbuckel]

48. Which laws were broken by Wikieaks?

[sabrina 1]

61. Then in that case, so does Wikileaks. Information coming from

Whistle blowers IS legally obtained. That is how News Organizations like Wikileaks get their information on crimes being committed by Governments and Businesses that harm the public.

Btw, what do you think of the brutal war crimes revealed by the Wikileaks War Logs? Does it interest you that our government is engaged in such brutality against innocent human beings? Do you believe that there should now be investigations and prosecutions of these war criminals?

Wikileaks, the NYT, the Guardian et al, they are only the messengers, but the crimes appear to be getting overlooked even by Democrats. Why is that?

[alberg]

95. You've made the essential point.

They set up a straw man enemy to distract attention from the real issues: war crimes, abuse of power, graft, corruption and the use of military power in the service of corporate vs Democratic objectives.

[DearAbby]

97. Wiki hacked what companies or Corporations?

jes askin

[snot]

128. Neither does Wikileaks.

The U.S. and other governments have struggled for months to find some legal violation to charge them with, without success.

To date, the U.S. law most discussed as a possible basis for charges is the Espionage Act, which was used to try to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers – and in that case, the charges were dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Wikileaks' case, the argument for a violation of the Espionage Act is even weaker, since (1) Wikileaks has neither stolen nor leaked any information but merely published information others leaked to it, and (2) Wikileaks is not a U.S. citizen or resident.

U.S. officials' best remaining hope is to persuade Bradley Manning, the soldier alleged to have leaked the U.S. cables to Wikileaks, to "confess" something to suggest that Wikileaks actively conspired with him to bring about the leak. As of this writing, they've held Manning for nearly eight months without bail and without a date set for any hearing, in solitary and under conditions so harsh that the United Nations' top anti-torture envoy is now investigating the situation (see reports at Salon and Firedoglake; so far, no confession; but such conditions often induce dementia, so maybe they'll get lucky.)

And as of this writing, notwithstanding Assange's stint on Interpol's "most wanted" list in connection with allegations of sex without a condom, he has yet to be charged with anything (not that such allegations would be relevant, even if the evidence warranted charging him).

[snot]

130. Here's another difference:

Wikileaks practices what they call "scientific journalism," meaning that the provide links to the source so you can confirm for yourself whether an account is accurate.

Most traditional media outlets do this only sporadically, if at all.

[grahamhgreen]

132. Leaks are legitimate. Wikileaks does not hack, they only print the info.

[Fumesucker]

23. Duh.. Wikileaks didn't pimp the Iraq war..

Does the name "Judith Miller" ring any bells?

[moondust]

38. One is basically just a website that will post anything.

There are no reporters that I know of.

[reorg]

40. You are confusing Wikileaks with the National Enquirer n/t

[moondust]

41. I think the NE actually has some reporters and editors. n/t

[reorg]

46. I think you don't know what a reporter is n/t

[moondust]

50. Lame.

Very lame. You would obviously consider all 166,000+ users of DU "reporters" because they, too, post stuff on a website. :crazy:

[reorg]

64. No, I trust the judgement of real reporters who are pretty unanimous

that Wikileaks carries out a significant function in the news business and is already part of it.

Not all journalists are "reporters", reporters are not necessarily good at being news editors, a news agency is different from a newspaper, a tabloid daily is something vastly different from a political monthly magazine. So, obviously, functions and tasks are not all alike, the question is whether they are relevant to get information out.

Had no news outlet been interested in what Wikileaks were offering them, you may have a point. But several quite respectable (comparatively) publications have extensively covered the leaks - it didn't even start only last year, it has just become more noticable and much bigger now.

Apart from their main function, providing a safe space to dump significant data of public interest, they started out by vetting the leaks themselves, providing summaries and bylines and some keywords before uploading them to their site. Now they directly cooperate with major news outlets which decide what to publish and how to frame the information.

However, they ALWAYS kept private information out of anything they have published, and nothing gets published without a specific reason which meets the general goals. That is, they always made an editorial decision. In a few isolated cases these decisions may have been debatable, but that is what happens everywhere, especially with a budding enterprise.

[moondust]

87. Unanimous?

Nice try.

Why Journalists Aren’t Standing Up for WikiLeaks

You're obviously the decider when it comes to what is journalism and what is not. :eyes:


"ALWAYS kept private information out of anything they have published"

Do you make this shit up yourself or does somebody feed it to you?

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

[reorg]

92. pretty much

from your own Newsweek link:

In Assange’s home country of Australia, the editors of most of the major papers signed a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard opposing prosecution of Assange in Australia or the U.S. “WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret,” the letter stated. “To prosecute a media organisation for publishing a leak would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press. In Australia, it would seriously curtail Australian media organisations reporting on subjects the government decides are against its interests.”

(...)

Nineteen professors—a little more than half the faculty—at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which is widely regarded as the nation’s most prestigious journalism program, signed a letter to the Obama administration arguing that WikiLeaks engaged in First Amendment–protected activity and should not be prosecuted, but the academics used more cautious wording than the Australians: “While we hold varying opinions of WikiLeaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables WikiLeaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/04/why-journalists-aren-t-defending-julian-assange.html

There are those who criticise Wikileaks for the way they were handling the material, some may feel it is not "good" journalism, but it can hardly be denied that Wikileaks is publishing relevant information, which cannot be said of quite a few "journalists" out there.

On edit: Interesting discussion, lots of journalists:

http://frontlineclub.com/events/2011/01/on-the-media-wikileaks---a-mirror-for-journalism.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising."

~ Lord Northcliffe, British publisher 1865-1922

[firehorse]

51. A newspaper is set up as a corporation,

And since it is a corporation, you can sue the paper, but the writers have protection from the paper. The paper also has a team of lawyers set up for this. This is just a guess.

I know sole proprietors for example, can get sued and are more vulnerable legally. Entities set up as a corporation operate differently and have more protections.

[pnwmom]

53. The NYTimes doesn't publish information acquired anonymously

unless they can confirm it through other sources. And, unlike Wikileaks, they know the identity of the vast majority of people they work with.

Wikileaks, on the other hand, will publish unverified documents submitted anonymously, then leave it up to the reader to decide whether it's legitimate or not. That's not journalism.

[rhett o rick]

69. Was what the NYT/Judith Miller did journalism? Why do you hate whistle-blowers?

Because they dare question authority? Dare expose the big corporations?

[pnwmom]

71. Judith Miller failed miserably in her Iraq reporting.

That doesn't change the definition of journalism, however.

And I don't hate whistle-blowers at all. Whistle-blowers like Ellsberg, who risk their careers to uncover evil, should be commended.

As opposed to anonymous leakers who scatter whatever documents they can get their hands on willy-nilly across the Internet.

[rhett o rick]

83. The NYT published carefully crafted propaganda aimed at convincing the American

public that an invasion of Iraq was necessary. THAT'S NOT JOURNALISM.

By the way, Ellsberg openly supports Wikileaks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Are you questioning the veracity of what WikiLeaks has released?

Hell, even the "transparency" loving government isn't going that far.

[pnwmom]

75. I have no way of knowing if all of the hundreds of thousands

of documents are legitimate and unaltered, and neither do you.

Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. So? Neither does the NY Times, The Guardian, Der Speigel.

But, they're publishing them. Would you rather have our ever so honest government verifying their veracity?

[moondust]

96. And that should not be considered journalism either.

It is nothing more than printing secondhand information. But they will probably be protected because they do employ real reporters and real editors who mainly engage in news gathering, editing, and publishing.

[reorg]

99. news gathering, editing, publishing - that's exactly what Wikileaks does

Very good description.

Now, what else are your criteria for "real" journalism?

[moondust]

No they don't.

All WikiLeaks does is post stuff on their website that people send to them. And/or pass it around to other people. They may sit around and decide what to post/send in order to get the biggest bang out of it, or for maximum extortive return, but that's nothing more than information handling. And potentially extortion. It's not even close to journalism.

The Julian Assange Fan Club, aka WikiLeaks, basically checks their mail and e-mail several times a day to see if anybody has sent them any juicy new stuff that they can get rich and famous off of by posting it on their website.

[reorg]

106. they are gathering, editing, publishing news

Often, what a journalist does is sitting around, reading press releases, the police report, newspapers and talks with others what to use and how to make it appear as if they have added something. It's, like, information handling - as you have put it so very well.

The journalists behind Wikileaks OTOH had this great idea to make it possible for people with a conscience - who otherwise might have turned to traditional news media but didn't have the guts or didn't really trust them - to anonymously send in information that they thought needed to be made public. It is generally accepted among journalists that this in itself was a great idea. There are different views about how this information should be dealt with, and there is the realization among those who were involved in the latest releases that the vast amount of these data needs new expertise which traditional journalists never had the opportunity to gather (see the discussion at the Frontline Club I linked previously).

Wikileaks was a new approach, leaving the material as it is in a public space was deliberate. At first they had the idea that the material should be worked through using "cloudsourcing", time and energy of volunteers drawing on different sets of experience, perhaps following a set of rules like they do at Wikipedia. For some reason this idea didn't catch on, so they did all the vetting, editing and selecting within their own small group. Finally, with the latest release, they left the selecting and editing to established journalists and only provided support with making the files searchable.

The Guardian has never spent so much time and column space on a single source of information, it was a very big deal for them. To deny that they, in cooperation with Wikileaks, were engaged in a journalistic effort is just silly. It is a major scoop and the stories keep coming.

[moondust]

111. See post #108.

[reorg]

114. See post #110

and #106.

[sabrina 1]

119. Yes they do. Wikileaks goal was to work with credible news

organizations as Julian Assange has always said, because, he said 'they have the expertise and the trained personnel on their staff to be able to take all of this material and sort through it and publish what is important'.

And that's precisely what they did. They have worked with the NYT, The Guardian, La Monde Assange has been an author for quite some time and on their site, he has posted material written by him, some of which has won awards. Eg, he personally won Amnesty International's 'New Media Award for 2009 for what he wrote about the brutal Kenyan Government.

I think you should learn a little about the organization before accepting the lies coming from the U.S. MSM. You are completely wrong in your assessment of what they do and have done.

Are you aware, eg, of who these people you are insulting actually are? Who started Wikileaks?

If Bush were president right now every single person on the left would be backing them as they should. It really is a shame to see that all that concern on the left for war crimes and corruption was really only because 'Bush was doing it'.

So, what do you think ought to be done about the horrific war crimes revealed in the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs? Why the focus on the messengers? Have you read any of the war logs or the cables and if so, do you really want this country engaged in these kinds of crimes? Should there be investigations now, or do you think that the messengers are more important than torture and murder of innocents?

[pnwmom]

102. They can't verify documents posted anonymously on their

site -- as a legitimate publisher would do -- and they don't edit either. They left any redacting to the real publishers with whom they work.

[reorg]

109. yes they can

and they do edit, as I said: they always wrote an intro, provided key words, and that they didn't redact the original documents was a deliberate decision with which I agree. The only disadvantage of this approach is that it is quite an arduous task to work through all these documents and find something which you may find interesting.

[pnwmom]

113. How do they verify the accuracy of millions of documents?

[reorg]

115. Easy, ask the source

If those who make so much noise about how these documents were "illegally" obtained don't sue for slander or even deny that they are authentic (that's the term, BTW, not the one you used), then you have all the verification you need to go public.

[pnwmom]

117. That's garbage, not journalism. n/t

[reorg]

126. The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El País, The NYT disagree with you

Perhaps because they all have some experience with "garbage journalism" themselves.

There are no failproof safeguards against an elaborate hoax, so, in theory, it is possible that one might slip through. It has happened to established newspapers, it could happen to Wikileaks.

The real concern, though, is the exact opposite: that the documents are real and the information is true. I guess we'll have to decide for ourselves what and whom to believe. It's just like with the WMD hoax in the run-up to the Iraq war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. So, because WikiLeaks didn't edit it, it's not news?

And, because it's not "published" it's not news?

"Second-hand" information? The same could be said about almost any event that reporters weren't present at. After all, how can we be sure that those guys landed on the moon when the NY Times didn't have a reporter there?

[moondust]

108. Unverifable.

Neither the hackers at WikiLeaks nor the above news outlets were eyewitnesses to the events in question, and in few instances can they even question/verify what happened with the actual participants who did witness them.

You can believe whatever you want about anything including the moon shot and some people obviously do.

[reorg]

110. You don't know what you are talking about

They didn't report stories, they published documents. You don't need an eyewitness to verify a document.

[moondust]

116. So...

If I sent this to you you would gladly post it on your website and call it journalism--even if you couldn't verify it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Now you've moved into a tree not falling because no reporter was there to see it territory.

Obviously, nobody wrote the cables because the Times' ace reporter wasn't there to look over the writer's shoulder and check their State Department credentials.

What next. All that wet stuff falling from the sky isn't water because drop of it wasn't verified to be H20 by a certified hydrologist?

[pnwmom]

118. Because they make no real effort to determine its authenticity.

It might be "news" under a very broad banner, but it's not journalism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. So, you're saying the cables aren't real? The State Department doesn't even challenge that.

Do the Times, Guardian, etc, have to have the actual cables in hand?

Reporting the news is "Journalism". Are you saying that the release of the cables isn't news? If so, there are a helluva lot of journalists who are reporting it, commenting on it, writing about it, who have been deceived into thinking that it is news.

Or, is Bradley Manning in prison awaiting trial because the Pentagon and State Department is pissed off because he made up a bunch of stuff and said they were State Department cables?

[pnwmom]

122. Why would the State Department challenge the cables?

If there were specific alterations in any of the cables to point out, they would be tacitly admitting that the rest was accurate, and there's no benefit to that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. They are tackity admitting to the accuracy of the cables by not challenging them.

If they aren't accurate, then no "secrets" would have been divulged. Do you really think Bradley Manning sat around for however many years it would take writing counterfeit cables?

[rhett o rick]

124. "Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?" Plez, that is so beneath you. nm

[alberg]

84. Wikileaks verifies their sources, just like the NYT.

[bread_and_roses]

60. All the "NYT good/Wikileaks bad" defenders of secrecy seem to have forgotten Pentagon Papers

How many here think Ellsberg should be vilified for his leaking the Pentagon Papers, and that the NYT acted criminally and outside the First Amendment protection when they published the Pentagon Papers?

Lots of authoritarianism on display here - the NYT is an institution, so it's OK. Wikileaks is an upstart, so not OK. We should allow our government to lie and act in secrecy because "they know better" - or something like that, it's really hard to figure out what is meant. I simply cannot imagine the same arguments appearing here if the previous WH resident or one of his ilk were still there.

[Kaleko]

79. This thread has been overrun by combatants

in the war on common sense.

DU is becoming almost useless when it comes to discussing anything related to WikiLeaks.

[alberg]

86. It's a controversial topic - opinions are strong on both sides.

What's needed is a respect for facts and logic. The conversation around the limits of government power and the rights of citizens to be well informed is as old as Democracy.

[Kaleko]

89. Knock yourself out.

I have no patience with posters who induce chronic cognitive dissonance by disrespecting known facts and knee-jerking all over threads with their blatantly prejudiced tripe.

[alberg]

91. Agreed. Unfortunately there's a'lot of them at DU these days.

The disregard for facts and logic is a trademark of right wing conservatives.

[Kaleko]

100. Youp. Their main weapon in the war on common sense is the liberal use

of half-truths sandwiched between two lies, strawmen or myths so as to create endless confusion in their enemies.

:hi:

[alberg]

101. I take it that you intend the word "liberal" to mean "frequent" - right?

[Kaleko]

103. Yeah. A bit of irony there.

Thought you might appreciate it.

[Quezacoatl]

88. NYT makes political contributions

[robcon]

107. If you fail to see the difference between the NYT and Wikileaks...

that says a lot about your incredibly weak powers of analysis of what's going on.

False equivalence is a logical trap, IMO.

[reorg]

112. there is a difference: the documents released by Wikileaks are more credible n/t

[alberg]

131. Why is one "Terrorism" and the other "Journalism"?