Truth. Assange and Wikileaks are not asking for compensation for its leaks.

[Luminous Animal]

"WikiLeaks asked CNN and the Wall Street Journal to sign confidentiality agreements that would have entitled WikiLeaks to a payment of around $100,000 if the partner broke the embargo, according to people briefed on the agreement who asked not to be named because they weren't authorized to disclose the information publicly. The agreement also stipulated that WikiLeaks could enforce the terms of the agreement in a court of WikiLeaks' choosing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905421.html

[Luminous Animal]

1. Kick for truth.

[donco6]

2. K&R Thanks. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

3. Kick, again.

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. Rec...nt

[boppers]

6. Uh, you might want to read this:

http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-economy-of-wikileaks/

The plan is not only charging for early access to the leaks, but selling them to the highest bidder in various geographies.

[Luminous Animal]

9. That's interesting. Still no evidence (in fact, evidence to the contrary) that Wikileaks

asked for compensation for the State Dept. cables. And no evidence that they've auctioned off anything since the failure of the 1st attempt.

But I have to ask, how are they to be compensated for their time and effort? If news organizations are already donating because it saves them money, then why, if Wikileaks does the leg work and the research (because they do, in fact, authenticate before they release), shouldn't they be paid like the old news stringers of the past?

[boppers]

11. The plan may not have worked out.

As far as the ethics involved in compensation for doing that work, it's a sticky issue.

[Luminous Animal]

17. How? They are actually in a position to acquire information that traditional news orgs would

have to pay personnel a pile of money to do. Work that traditional news orgs (to some extent) used to do, by the way. What is the difference between having a contract with AP that provides original content to most newspapers nationwide and Wikileaks that provides original information?

[boppers]

21. AP plays nice, usually within the boundaries of relevant laws....

...and Wikileaks is willing to flaunt quite a few laws pretty heavily, going so far as to conceal criminal sources.

It's an interesting thing to think about, though.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Wikileaks has faced many legal challenges and has never lost a case.

What laws do you assert that they've flaunted? And it is not illegal to conceal a criminal source unless the journalist was also a participant in the crime.

[boppers]

29. Not losing a case is not evidence that laws have not ever been flaunted.

"What laws do you assert that they've flaunted?"

Privacy laws, copyright laws, state secrets laws, trade secrets laws, and so on... most of the laws about keeping secret information, and ownership and usage of information.

I'm not passing judgement, mind you, because I think that a bunch of the laws involved are crap, but that's not the same thing as asserting that they have been entirely within the boundaries of legal behavior across all the jurisdictions they interact with.

[Luminous Animal]

31. They are a news organization. If you are going to claim that they've broken laws.

then you must also believe that nearly every news organization has broken laws.

You've made the claim that they've flaunted the law. I believe it is up to you to illustrate, specifically, (just one case will do) when they've done that.

[boppers]

32. We may be talking across each other, here...

"you must also believe that nearly every news organization has broken laws"

Yes, I do.

U.S. News organizations regularly break Turkish laws about defaming Turkishness, they break Chinese laws about promoting religion and democracy, they break UK laws about privacy, Thai laws about the royal family, etc.

Happy to bump the thread, but do you see my point? Wikileaks is willing to break a lot of laws around the globe, especially laws in countries which do not have news/press exemptions. That's part of their more interesting work.

Just one case? Okay, the OT levels are always a fun topic when talking about the intersections of law, and the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Scientology

[Luminous Animal]

33. Yes. And the business I work for has received several cease and desist letters

from major corporations. Our lawyers wrote back and said no (although they used many more words and cited case law, etc.) and that was the end of that. Well, it is clear that you cannot cite any illegalities. Thanks anyway. I guess.

[boppers]

34. I think you may be limited in understanding my perspective and point.

Do you work in China? Turkey? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran?

Illegal activities vary around the world. Much of what wikileaks does is legal in the United States, but illegal elsewhere.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Wikileaks is legal in the sphere in which it operates. Thus, the organization has not broken the law

Some of my personal internet activity would be illegal in China but I do not operate in China, thus I have not broken the law.

[boppers]

36. Wikileaks operates a website available around the globe.

(...except for where it's been censored for breaking the law, or pissing people off)

[jberryhill]

12. Leg work and research?

The guy that did that is sitting behind bars in Virginia.

[Luminous Animal]

15. They actually research the material to ensure that it authentic and they write original content.

"2.4 How it works

When WikiLeaks receives a document, our accredited journalists assess the submission. If it meets the criteria, our journalists then write or produce a news piece based on the document. This typically includes a description of the document, an analysis of why it is important, and an explanation of what it signifies to broader society. The news piece might also highlight the parts of the document that are most newsworthy. Our news stories are deliberately analytical regarding the wider significance of the document. We then link from the news piece to the original submission."


The reason why it took so long between receiving the cables and releasing them is that Wikileaks spent months assessing the info (and, in some cases, editing it to protect persons and national & international security.)

[HEyHEY]

16. No they shouldnt' be

Countless sources do leg work and research then come to reporters with the results for free. If they want to write finished pieces, they can and would then make money.

I think it should be set up like a co-op. Not there to make money, but anyone paying in can use the info.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Sources are often paid by the lead. It is in a loose sense a coop. MSM news orgs already donate.

They have an interest in keeping Wikileaks in business.

[HEyHEY]

20. I've never heard of a source being paid EVER

Unless you're talking about polling companies or commodity gathering companies and such.

[boppers]

22. Have a politically relevant link:

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/enquirer-paid-50000-for-edwards-story

[HEyHEY]

23. That's a tabloid paper

Hard news papers are a different story.

BTW: I'm only guessing based on reading the link. I can't open it.

[boppers]

30. Yes, it's about a tabloid.

The lines get blurry in some cases, which is where things are interesting.

[EFerrari]

7. Kick

[OKDem08]

8. I remember seeing a yt video of Assange when he was

relatively new at this. (Paraphrasing from memory) He stated that initially leaks were gratis but they quickly realized that if there was not some sort of monetary value attached to it, it was not perceived as worthy of attention.

[Bucky]

10. thank you for this clarification.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. take a quick look at the link in post 6, thats also quite enlightening.

[jberryhill]

14. As someone who writes agreements for a living...

The reason the source here is "someone who can't be named" is because the entire agreement is subject to a confidentiality agreement.

The source is not even someone who has seen the agreement, but was "briefed" on it.

How does that equate to "Truth"?

[Luminous Animal]

19. Then, how about truth as it is reported.

There is another OP that claims, based on the same news article, that Wikileaks is selling its information.

The TRUTH is that nowhere in the article is that claim made.

[jberryhill]

26. The TRUTH is that we don't know the truth

I'll probably be making this point a lot, but people get beat up on DU all of the time for saying "I don't know" and for simply sharing thoughts and perspectives on why something might be X or might be Y.

There is a peculiar dominant mindset here that wants to pigeonhole every idea or fact as black or white, good or bad, and that's unfortunate.

I have no idea what Assange is getting out of this, and I do suspect it is unlikely to be anything having to do with money. Money is overplayed as a motivator.

People have deeper psychological needs for a lot of things.

In one interview he says that it immensely "personally satisfying" to "crush bastards" or something to that effect. I agree - it's a rush. A large part of my work is defending individuals and smallish businesses against sometimes very large and powerful corporations and political figures.

I've also recognized that "rush" is something that one can get a wee bit carried away with. The temptation is to go out looking for the next "bastard" and, barring that, consider anyone else to be one.

Arrogance is a real danger to moral crusaders. Was there a legitimate concern about Soviet intentions after WWII? Sure. They just swallowed a chunk of Europe. Did Joe McCarthy represent the valid extent or response to that concern? No f-ing way.

As detailed elsewhere, I had a front row seat to certain strands of Mr. Assange's personality some years back, and I got the impression that he has a longstanding load of hostility of some kind, just looking for an appropriate target. That can actually be a good thing as long as one has appropriate targets.

Trusting people is a good thing. Taken too far, one is a gullible sap.

Suspicion is a good thing. Taken too far, it is paranoia.

A healthy personality balances impulses toward trust and suspicion. Both of those impulses have evolutionary and social advantages. An imbalance of them leads to very bad things.

[kenny blankenship]

24. The Children Of the Corn make their own truth.

Your facts are useless in the face of their faith and pompoms. Quite useless!

[saras]

27. Trivial

There may be a fact or two in this thread, but it's an utterly trivial amount of truth compared with the amount contained in the leaked documents. DU seems about 1/3 dedicated to proving the truth of this post: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/8406

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Maybe, maybe not.

Someone is paying for this.