WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets

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.

Comments

I know it's called WikiLeaks, but...

[superdude72]

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?

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but...

[fishexe]

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.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but...

[Blue Stone]

>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

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but...

[Sonic McTails]

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.