Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets

Posted by timothy on from the pentagon-papers-on-the-resume dept.

formfeed writes "According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'" I wonder if some of the anti-WikiLeaks fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources. Update: 12/05 17:42 GMT by T : Yes, that's WikiLeaks, rather than (as originally rendered) WikiPedia. HT to reader Mike Hearn.

8 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by superdude72 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

    No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

    1. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by fishexe · · Score: 5, Informative

      What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

      They provide a secure anonymous drop-box so that people can leak to them without leaving a trail by which to get caught. (It's important to note that Bradley Manning got caught because he went around bragging to others about leaking; WikiLeaks didn't blow his cover, he did that himself)

      No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else.

      They don't leak, but they do facilitate leaks. By providing the secure setup they presumably encourage leaks that would not otherwise occur, and distribute material that might be containable by the authorities if the leakers had gone to a more traditional outlet.

      So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

      Simply put, the attacks aren't justified, but people in the press and government are self-righteous assholes.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    2. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Informative

      >What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

      Nothing, but the hypocritical unprincipled politicians* who are calling for Assange's head feel they can attack Wikileaks because it doesn't look like regular, 4th estate media, and they think this means they can avoid charges of attacking the free press. Because Wikileaks is a little bit different.

      They can't, but they think they can, particularly when trying to dupe the least informed members of our societies to rouse support for their attacks.

      *example of lack of principles and lack of adherence to the rule of law (that's just for us little folks) from The Guardian, today:

      "Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, say that they have been surveilled by members of the security services and have accused the US state department of behaving "inappropriately" by failing to respect attorney-client protocol.

      Jennifer Robinson and Mark Stephens of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent told the Guardian they had been watched by people parked outside their houses for the past week.

      [...] a letter from a state department legal adviser – addressed to both Assange and [Robinson] – which appeared to bracket together client and lawyer as if to suggest that WikiLeaks and its lawyers were one and the same.

      The letter, which was released to the press, begins: "Dear Ms Robinson and Mr Assange. I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to US Ambassador Louis B Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified US government documents."

      Robinson said: "By eliding client and lawyer, that was a very inappropriate attempt to implicate me. That is really inappropriate to come from the state department of all places; they understand very well the rules on attorney-client protocol."

      It's quite a serious situation," she said, adding that, according to the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers "are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference" and that "lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions".

      [...]

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats utter nonsense. When has any other major media organization ever received classified information that it decided to reveal even after being told numerous times by the us government to not post it?e?

      Guess you didn't bother to research that claim.

      Pentagon Papers was the first thing that came to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers. Watergate was the second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal. Plenty others exist if you want more examples.

      --
      This signature was left intentionally blank.
  2. Backlash against AP? by seyyah · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

    Why should they? AP is reporting that Wikileaks collaborated with five media outlets, but Associated Press is not one of those five outlets.

    They are:
    El Pais
    Le monde
    The Guardian
    Der Spiegel
    The New York Times

  3. Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Press coverage today is more favorable to Wikileaks.

    • BBC: "Pursuit of Wikileaks founder 'political'"
    • The Times (London): "Backlash as Amazon pulls WikiLeaks server"
    • The Guardian: "Julian Assange's lawyers say they are being watched"
    • The Australian: "WikiLeaks reveals ugly truth"
    • San Jose Mercury News: "O'Brien: Why we should applaud Wikileaks"
    • The Atlantic: "Must-Read: NYT-Wikileaks on China and Google"
    • Vancover Sun: "Wikileaks an indictment of diplomacy"

    There's even talk that Assange might be Time's "Man of the Year".

    Also, there are now 74 mirrors of Wikileaks.

    1. Re:Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Concerning Assange being "Person of the Year" (it's PC nowadays): duh. Who has had a greater impact on the world than Assange throughout the last year? The other top candidate is LeBron James.

      The "Person of the Year" has been real stupid for the last decade. In 2006 it was "You," 2005 "The Good Samaritans" (represented by Bono and Bill Gates), in 2003 it was "The American Solider," and in 2002, ironically enough it was "The Whistleblowers" (the Enron mess). 2001's selection of Rudy Giuliani was pretty piss-poor as well. Person of New York, sure. Person of the Year? Please. That was Osama bin Laden. All in all the "Person of the Year" was accurate to Time's description (having the most impact globally) about 50% of the time the last decade. It would be just like them to select LeBron James (who, ironically, said it would be a "great honor," obviously not understanding that it's not necessarily an honor at all: Putin, Arafat, Hitler, Stalin, ect.).

      Other past selections that reek of sentimentality/fail the basic criteria of being a person: "The American Fighting Man," "Scientists," "Baby Boomers," "Middle Americans," "American Women," "The Computer," and "The Endangered Earth." Some other media outlet should do the Man of the Year thing. Time has sucked at it for years.

      Yeah, that kind of went off-topic. Oops.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  4. Re:Fix the summary by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

    Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

    Once again the US Congress is grandstanding, pounding their chests, and proposing another redundant law. We already have several laws that make the disclosure of US Defense information illegal. For non-govt employees Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code apply.

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com]
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com]
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

    These are others that apply if you work for or contract to the government, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.