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.
The wikileaks (Score:3, Insightful)
be used to wage war against information access, like 9-11 is used to wage war against liberty and freedom.
Fix the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
But...but...but... (Score:0, Insightful)
I thought the media was nothing but a bunch of Democrat shills!
Go, tailgunner Joe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and pressure Network Solutions to pull nytimes.com. See how well that works.
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
The biases of Slashdot's editors and readers are numerous as well as obvious. Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc. Why are you surprised that they show a bias about Wikileaks too?
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:1, Insightful)
No, slashdot is pro-apple. You'll be virulently downmodded if you criticize the great one (Jobs).
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:2, Insightful)
No, slashdot is pro-apple. You'll be virulently downmodded if you criticize the great one (Jobs).
From what I can tell...
Slashdot is Pro-Apple, Pro-Microsoft, Pro-Linux, Pro-PS3, Pro-Xbox, pro-Wii, pro-piracy, anti-piracy, anti-Wii, anti-xbox, anti-PS3, anti-Linux, anti-Microsoft, anti-Apple, anti-computers, pro-computers
should I continue?
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the US government declined to assist. "Hi, we just got a whole bunch of classified documents you'd rather us not have, and we'd like to publish them. Want to help us redact them?" Any answer the government gives other than "publish nothing" is basically approving Wikileaks publishing leaked documents.
Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S hasn't actually done anything to wikileaks, I know there's a lot of hysteria around it and the administration are opposed to it because of the embarrassment is causes (and generally makes everyone else's work much harder to do now) but there's really nothing in the leaks that point or show any wrong doing. All it shows in the internal back and forth of the inner workings of the government, as far as spying on diplomats so what? everyone spies.. and believe it or not it's in the best interest of YOUR country to know as much about other countries as possible.
You don't wanna invade another country based on bad information right? [/sarcasm]
Traditional media is under control (Score:5, Insightful)
The USG has nothing to fear from the NYT or any other news source. They are always interested in keeping access to government officials, so they never step over the line when reporting the news. They don't report on the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Editors at the major media companies are good friends with everyone in Washington and Wall Street, so you can't get good coverage there either.
Even looking at coverage of WikiLeaks, how many are reporting that the US State Department new immediately that the coup in Honduras was illegal, and then publicly stated a month later that they hadn't decided what had happened? How many are reporting that Hillary Clinton knew Saudi Arabia was the main funding source for the worst extremist groups in the world, but did not publicly reveal this to US Citizens for fear of damaging trade relations with the oil barons?
You would think that would even be front page news on Fox, who'd bread is buttered by fear mongering about muslim terrorists, but it's always below the fold, or on some opinion column that never sees the front page. That's because one of their main investors is a Saudi Prince.
A truly independent press is too dangerous for the United States to tolerate. It's told too many lies to too many people for too long. They know WikiLeaks has zero self-interest in American interests, and that's why the organization is so feared.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell
They want to publish only about 100 of 250000... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really interesting. From TFA: "The Times said it intends to publish only about 100 or so of the records. And the other news organizations that have the material said they likely will release only a fraction."
Well, this is mostly very boring stuff. Still, having only a handful of newspapers and some journalists try to find something interesting in this large pile of documents means that there will be gems that will not be found. These cables go back to 1966 and there must be very interesting details in there about things that just aren't on the radar for these journalists.
I'm really looking forward to Wikileaks publishing all of this.
No, here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
There's little question the AP and other press sources wouldn't have published anything like the volume of information Wikileaks has. Right now they are acting as a restraint rather than an enabler and it's likely the government will see them as an ally trying to bring a troublesome organization under control. I don't think that's the role the press is supposed to have, but they have decided that for whatever reasons they must make decisions about what the public should see rather than maximizing transparency and reporting simple facts.
Re:But...but...but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Profit trumps ideology any day.
Profit IS ideology.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc.
You could probably combine those into a single "pro-freedom" or "pro-individual rights".
They don't have a choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't help the government they too can be charged with rape, pedophilia, or something heinous. Their career as a journalist can be ended with a phonecall, their marriage can be ended with a phonecall, do you understand the amount of power the spy agencies have? One phonecall and a life can be destroyed.
Assange might be willing to take a rape charge with a straight face and stiff upper lip but most Americans are cowardly and want to save their asses.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
That's the ironic part. Wikileaks is outside the US and its laws, but NYT is inside the US and can be prosecuted under existing US laws. That the US govt is purusing Julian and not NYT is indeed hypocritical.
Re:But...but...but... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you feel the media are Democrat shills when the Republicans are in power, everything's fine.
If you feel the media are Republican shills when the Democrats are in power, everything's fine.
The media lie and the government lies. As long as they tell different lies, democracy is working.
You should watch out, though, if they start telling the same lies.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Being part of the free press ... doesn't give you cover to work with a person who is illegally stealing and transferring classified documents. Period.
Sure it does. If it doesn't in the US (with may or may not be the case - IANAL), this merely means that you have no free press there and not that a free press cannot work with and publish information obtained by and published by others (criminals or not) or has not the right and obligation to protect their sources.
And btw: stealing is when I take something away from you so that you no longer have it. Copying - by definition - can never be stealing as the term implies that the original is still there. So the term you're looking for is "copyright infringement", "licence violation" or something similar. Not quite as Manichean, I know, but the truth rarely is.
ignatius
Re:Go read your history kid (Score:2, Insightful)
Or is it okay because sometimes secrecy is necessary?
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Go read your history kid (Score:4, Insightful)
"When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power..."
That is at the heart of this war. The US government and military have abused their ability to classify information to the point that classification has become meaningless.
"Secrecy is a tool of evil, pure and simple."
I don't agree here. Classification of information is essential to any government or military (to a point). Unless your ultimate goal is to get rid of government altogether, but that is a different discussion.
Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (Score:4, Insightful)
I am concerned that if the US makes it a crime to publish classified information obtained from sources, it will basically end investigative journalism and take the US one step closer to being like Russia or China.
I am not sure if that makes sense. Do you know what "classified" means?
Some degree of government secrecy has always been needed. Government secrecy was as essential during the revolutionary war, as it is today.
No, Virginia, publishing classified information is absolutely not the same as investigative journalism.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
So what was Bob Woodward doing when he refused to reveal the identity of Deep Throat? What have countless other journalists done in refusing to reveal sources, to the point of being put in jail for contempt of court?
Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think they do -- I think most /.'s support legal action against the guy who, in this analogy, purposefully opened the barn door. The debate's over what to do once the pigs are out -- they could have gone to anyone, including foreign governments, and they could have gone there secretly, and they could have gone to someone who would release them instantly without any redaction or offer to work with the government. The only improvement you could reasonably ask for is not to release stuff at all. Anything else would have been worse than the current situation. But the 'enabler' concept comes in because WikiLeaks didn't just happen across stray pigs (to come back to the analogy), they had publicly stated they would take them in and redistribute them, if anyone should provide them. But that's nothing new -- the rest of the media's been doing that all along. It's their business. In fact, you can be somewhat thankful that this went to a sort of neutral third party, not directly to one particular media outlet, who would have had control over the spin of stories coming out. Here, you've got several independent eyes looking at it. So now you're talking about possibly the best kind of enabler, considering who else is out there. This really seems like the lesser of all evils, considering the barn doors aren't locked tight enough.
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you see how ruthless the [bully] is because their attention is directed toward you. The way to deal with [bullies] 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.
My, aren't you the submissive little bitch... stand up for your rights. There is more of us than there are of them, if we stick to our principles and refuse to give up, we get to keep our freedoms. If you kneel down, you'll get whipped.
Re:It's not lawmakers you have to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want your life ruined over Wikileaks?
Let's say you're right. The government conspiracies are going to ruin the people who help Wikileaks. Then why are you trying to convince people not to help them? Better that they fight the good fight and some of them get taken down by The Man than that we all continue to live as serfs, no? You've pretty much established that you're more afraid of the CIA than you are brave enough to stand up for what's right; the least you could do is not try to convince other people to be cowards.
Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've hit it exactly on the head, and no-one seems to be mentioning this.
NYT and the other US organizations are protected because of the rights enumerated to US citizens by the constitution. Wikileaks, as a foreign entity, has no such protections guaranteed. In this regards, it is not hypocritical at all.
But I guess its easier to be inflammatory and just say the US government is attacking the free press.
The US Media is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Media is useless and most people I've heard are quite misinformed about Wikileaks. This is NOT news, WikiLeaks has been working with major news outlets (mostly not in USA) for a while now. Back when the politicians were claiming lives lost and the huge evil of the war log leaks the Media didn't report that WikiLeaks was also working with news partners and the NYTimes was working on it with the Gov to make the leaks "responsible." Sure, mistakes were still made - it was not the big deal like it was blown into. The US Media doesn't think or work for a living, they just repeat what the Gov or talking heads or AstroTurf group says and hardly even moderates between those.
I'm all for redundant news about how WikiLeaks isn't the only one involved.
Notice how WikiLeaks is being targeted so much stronger now when instead of WAR information? This had to be the last straw, can't let average to stupid people think badly of our 'diplomacy'! Forget the losing of two wars and the MILLION+ dead people you can't give away our diplomatic policies! I don't think most people would be surprised if they leaked that Iraq was ONLY for oil but WikiLeaks would get bombed and Bush still wouldn't be within eyesight of protesters let alone prosecuted.
Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange may not consider the US his enemy, but the US government surely considers him an enemy.
Re:Fix the summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, all of those are US Law, which certainly applies (and should) to the US Citizen (military employee) who illegally copied the information and disseminated it. Those laws of course *do not* apply to non-US Citizens who receive said information.
Now, whether they might be guilty under some "receiving stolen goods" type of international law might be arguable, but Assange/Wikileaks did not, technically, break any US laws.
Re:Not just a moron, but an oxymoron (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, it's not blackmail because they're not trying to illegitimately get something from them with he threat of releasing the information, they're trying to make sure they don't get a cruise missile in the face.
Calling that blackmail is stupid or dishonest.