WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets 385
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.
WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (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?
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:3, Informative)
Hold on, this story is news because WikiLeaks requested the U.S. government help them do exactly what they are now accused of retaining media outlets help them to do.
The U.S. government declined to assist. This is major news. Access to outside parties will continue to increase so long as the U.S. refuses to own this situation and assist in the preparation of these documents for dissemination.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (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.
Backlash against AP? (Score:5, 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
Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Press coverage today is more favorable to Wikileaks.
There's even talk that Assange might be Time's "Man of the Year".
Also, there are now 74 mirrors of Wikileaks. [twitlonger.com]
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (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 [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Fix the summary (Score:5, 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] [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. (Score:5, 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.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (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 [wikipedia.org]. Watergate was the second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal [wikipedia.org]. Plenty others exist if you want more examples.
Re:Fix the summary (Score:3, Informative)
It's too late, unfortunately. I was eating at some local old-folks' restaurant and the three old ladies next to my table were talking about that "dreadful wikipedia" blah blah anti-American wharrgarble. People are so fucking stupid and ignorant in the middle of the USA. I wanted to stab them in their wrinkled faces with my steak knife (seriously).
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that supporting Wikileaks in any capacity right now is one of the more dangerous things we can do. I have made small donations, so I'm probably under the Witch Hunt radar for now, but I really wonder how surprised I would be to have Feds knocking on my door over the holidays. The US government has acted more like North Korea than I ever would have expected and I think it has taken many by surprise. This just means that the US government will do some serious damage before the people en masse get a clue and try to stop it.
The one thing that I hope comes from all of this damage is that the US government and military stop abusing their ability to classify information.
When the US government acted like this to black people, or communists, or white supremacists, or muslims, nobody paid any attention because it wasn't happening to them.
Now you see how ruthless the government is because their attention is directed toward you. The way to deal with government is to always stay on their good side.
The less attention they have on you generally the better off you are. When you associate with certain networks of people they don't like, even if you just donate a dollar, you'll be put on the radar and it's impossible to get off once you get put on it.
Depending on how smart you are, what your capabilities are, and how close you are to who they want, they'll use unlimited resources to threaten you to make you an informant. If you disagree and refuse to inform on your brother, they'll charge you with some crime like possession of child pornography, possession of drugs, a sex crime, they'll find something to convict you with just to have something to put you under their total control.
Once you are behind bars they'll have their informants leak out how you are a snitch, informant, child molesting pedophile, and leave you to fend for yourself against prison Nazi's and street thugs who hate your kind. You think I'm lying? Look at this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/04/AR2010120403710.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:2, Informative)
But that was almost 40 years ago.
Today Woodward writes books lauding Bush's illegal wars and the NYT consults the government on which parts of the leak it would like suppressed.
The US has sunk so far that today Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/03-12-2010/116041-valerie_plame_wikileaks-0/) in in a position to criticise legitimately.
Time to rethink, guys. It looks as if the USA may, after all, have been a great big mistake.