Slashdot Mirror
NY Times Considers Creating a WikiLeaks Type Site
eko3 writes "The New York Times is considering options to create an in-house submission system that could make it easier for would-be leakers to provide large files to the paper. From the article: 'Executive editor Bill Keller told The Cutline that he couldn't go into details, "especially since nothing is nailed down." But when asked if he could envision a system like Al Jazeera's Transparency Unit, Keller said the paper has been "looking at something along those lines."'"
This is the New York Times hoping to get a scoop for free so they can increase readership without actually doing any real investigative journalism for themselves.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
The NY Times *may* have once had some real balls, back in the Vietnam/Watergate days. People used to really believe in them (and the press in general) back in those days too. Anyone remember the scene at the end of Firestarter where the guy takes the girl to the New York Times, knowing it's one of the few places she can tell her story that's safe from the government? Pretty typical attitude back in the "All the President's Men" era, when reporters regularly stood up to the government (or at least were perceived to).
But today they certainly don't have the guts to do it right. They will insist on editorial control of what gets actually posted, and once submitters see their stuff disappearing into a black hole (because the Times doesn't have the guts to publish anything that might offend their advertisers or subscribers, or *really* bring the government down on them), they'll go back to Wikileaks or other sites. No one wants to man-up and blow the whistle, only to have the NY Times kill their voice just as surely as the government would.
People don't believe in the press anymore. They've seen too many instances (like the second Iraq War) where the press served as little more than a cheerleader for the government, for big business, for nationalism, etc. No one still believes that The New York Times will be (or even could be) as free as Wikileaks.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Aren't we a little late on the fadwagon NYT?
to gain access to the submission page? Not sure how the paywall would work on that one.
They are the same as Al Jazeera; neither will report anything that is bad for business.
This is the outfit that help us get into the Iraq War.
They expect leakers to sign up and watch a 30-second ad before commenting.
Never gonna happen.
Would the NYT keep the submitter anonymous at all costs, and if not wouldn't this just become a honeypot for the US (or any) government?
"Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
There's very little "wiki" to Wikileaks. As for leaking stuff, they pride themselves on having the stuff vetted and confirmed by a team of professional journalists.
So it's a website with a bunch of journalists. And some pointy haired boss in NYT is saying "Ooooh, we should set up one of those!"
The only question is: why to whistle blowers go to Wikileaks instead of NYT?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
being in U.S. ? the country where everything is under the mercy of secret government agencies ?
after what happened with cryptome http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1910704&cid=34556662 , do you think that ANYone would trust nyt and leak ? nsa has been able to infiltrate a swiss establishment as such. they dont even need to infiltrate new york times.
Read radical news here
I hope that "Executive editor Bill Keller" has the common sense to restrain himself, when suddenly, after his LeakSite is online, chicks start trying to hit on him in bars. Otherwise, he can play cards with Julian Assange behind bars.
Assassinating the publishers of leaks is a dirty business. Assassinating their characters is a better, cleaner option.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Um, the NYT are all too eager to kiss the asses of the people in power, and you know they would sell out their leakers in a heartbeat for a pat on the head from their corporate masters. Not in a million years would I leak any information to an NYT leak site. For all the many faults of Julien Assange, at least you know he's not gonna sell you out and that he'll try to really distribute the information he gets.
If the point to leaking documents is to get information to the public about wrongdoing by powerful institutions like governments and large corporations so that the public can do something about it, The New York Times is not where I'd send the information.
The Times had evidence of the Bush Administration program to illegally wiretap American Citizens but, at the urging of the White House, sat on the story for a year until after the 2004 elections before publishing. The public might have taken action to punish the perpetrators of this crime by voting them out of office. But the Times made sure that the powerful lawbreakers avoided any accountability for their crimes.
Go ahead and leak information about crimes to The New York Times. But if that information implicates powerful people or institutions in the US, don't expect them to publish until the criminals have safely gotten away with it.