Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WSJ and Al-Jazeera Lure Whistleblowers

Posted by timothy on from the please-log-in-to-continue dept.

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."

4 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Everyone has their price, by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not everyone.

    You only have a "price" if you aren't willing to drop your anonymity.

    I posted a lot of whistleblowing material this weekend against my former boss - starmedia.ca - about tax fraud, over-billing customers, scamming the government-subsidized job training programs, etc.

    I didn't do it anonymously, because anonymous whistle-blowing has zero credibility.

    Sure enough, he got so scared he contacted my hosting company (iweb.com - if you don't use adblock, you'll see they're a big advertiser on slashdot and youtube), and they suspended my hosting account. He's too chicken-sh*t to sue me because he knows he'd lose.

    So, having my account suspended is a minor inconvenience compared to the price of knuckling under and allowing him to continue to lie, cheat, and steal.

    And iWeb is now off the list of hosting companies that I would recommend, since they're located in a country that has no 1st Amendment rights.

  2. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.