Slashdot Mirror


WSJ and Al-Jazeera Lure Whistleblowers

jjoelc writes "The success of Wikileaks in obtaining and releasing information has inspired mainstream media outlets to develop proprietary copycat sites. Al-Jazeera got into the act first, launching the Al-Jazeera Transparency Unit (AJTU), and On May 5, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Co., Inc., launched its own site, SafeHouse. According to the EFF though, both sites offer 'false Promises' of anonymity."

3 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Everyone has their price, by exentropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    anonymous whistle-blowing has zero credibility.

    Although having the leaker's name can increase credibility a little bit, it is ultimately the correctness of the information that matters. People believe Wikileak's documents because large portions have been verified; having whistleblower names attached to the leaked information wouldn't increase significantly increase the credibility of the docs.

  2. Re: Only ... by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Only fools trust WSJ] ... because it is owned by Newscorp ( Rupert Murdoch ).

    So long as the disclosure of information is in the financial interests of Newcorp (or advances Newscorp's march towards world domination), you can trust Rupert with your life.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  3. Re:Anonymity by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In that case, though, Wikileaks alone has proven it will protect its sources.

    Really? Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post kept silent about the identity of Deep Throat for over 30 years. Judith Miller went to jail for three months rather than reveal who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent to her. It seems like the conventional media do a pretty good job of keeping their sources confidential, if only because nobody would leak information to them otherwise.