Like It Or Not, WikiLeaks Is A Media Entity (And As Such Deserves Our Protection)

[Hissyspit]

http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/

Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity

By Mathew Ingram Dec. 4, 2010, 4:00pm PDT

The past week has seen plenty of ink spilled — virtual and otherwise — about WikiLeaks and its mercurial front-man, Julian Assange, and the pressure they have come under from the U.S. government and companies such as Amazon and PayPal, both of which have blocked WikiLeaks from using their services. Why should we care about any of this? Because more than anything else, WikiLeaks is a publisher — a new kind of publisher, but a publisher nonetheless — and that makes this a freedom of the press issue. Like it or not, WikiLeaks is fundamentally a journalistic entity, and as such it deserves our protection.

Not everyone agrees with this point of view, of course. Some argue that there is nothing journalistic about the organization whatsoever, and that it is simply a lawless group of misfits spreading information around that it doesn’t have the right to distribute, without caring for the effects of its actions. That may be true — but it’s also true that the same description fits more than one allegedly journalistic entity in the traditional media sphere, and they are all protected by the First Amendment and its principles regarding freedom of the press. So why is WikiLeaks not worthy of the same protection?

-snip -

So what makes WikiLeaks different from the New York Times? There are the obvious things, of course — the latter publishes a print newspaper, is a member of a variety of self-regulatory bodies involving the media, and is a venerable institution with a long history of journalistic integrity. WikiLeaks, meanwhile, is a shadowy organization with an uncertain history, opaque motivations and publishes only online. That said, why are we so eager to protect one and not the other? WikiLeaks’ stated intention is to bring transparency to the political process and expose wrongdoing. Isn’t that the same thing the Times does? And yet one is being hounded by government agents, forced to remove its documents from Amazon’s servers and blocked from using PayPal, while the other is free to publish whatever it wants. What if the Times were to store some of its content on Amazon’s EC2 servers or use PayPal for transactions — would it be subject to the same treatment? And if not, why is WikiLeaks?

Some would argue that we don’t need entities like WikiLeaks, because traditional publishers like the New York Times are good enough. And it’s true that leakers took their information to newspapers before WikiLeaks came along — but it’s also true that many of them refused to publish it. And in some cases, information that should not have been published actually took the spotlight away from the truth, as in the case of the Times’ reporting leading up to the Iraq War. An independent source of documents like WikiLeaks (which journalism professor Jay Rosen has called the world’s “first stateless news organization”) would have been a very valuable thing to have during that time.

MORE

[Creative]

1. This is not journalism, it is espionage.

Journalism is protected by the 1st Amendment, espionage is a crime.

Wikileaks may not be guilty of a crime, but those who are feeding them the information surely are.

[Iterate]

5. Since they've never revealed a source, I don't think you can say

if those feeding them are the information are criminal or not.

And since we can't say, then here's a hypothetical: You suspect your local police of killing a couple hundred of your fellow citizens and covering it up, and have some documents that would support that claim. Since you can't risk giving it to the local paper, you arrange to send it to WikiLeaks, who then vet it as best they can, and publish it for the use of other journalists who can vet it further still, and add the background for publication in the local paper.

Does that make WikiLeaks criminal, guilty of espionage? Or does that make them a new link in the journalistic chain? Wouldn't you say the original uploader is also heroic, as well as cautious in protecting not only his own life (and that of his family), but in protecting the information itself?

[Creative]

10. If Private Manning is one of the sources, he has clearly committed a crime.

Likewise, anyone working in a classified environment has, as a precondition of their employment, given their word that they will not divulge classified information. Therefore, anyone violating these terms, is guilty of a crime.

These people are not heroes, they are criminals.

[Iterate]

11. So is there no point at which you would not

violate an arbitrary designation of “secret” and the flimsy condition of employment contract? Is it when you know of one murder in your town or 200? And at which point do you not also become culpable and a co-conspirator? In that sense, I agree with you, culpability cascades through the ranks. Keep covering it up and it’s on your head, and that’s just plain cowardly, protecting your own job by covering up murder.

Private Manning was caught by his own actions, and once it was in WikiLeaks’ hands it became their decision as well. Do you really journalists at that point to decide what’s good for us or to protect their own careers? It seems to me that’s one way we got ourselves into this mess to begin with, too many cowardly journalists and newsreaders who have sold out and protected their careers by passing on talking points.

Either way, no fence to sit on: either it’s our government with our knowledge and input, our responsibility, or it’s theirs, the few with power, police state and all, guarded by compliant worker bees with guaranteed employment.

[Creative]

15. The "flimsy condition of an employment contract?" If someone does not agree with the terms

of a employment, they should not take the job.

War is a horrible thing and in some instances the decisions that are made under fire are the wrong decisions. In other words, I do not equate a so-called "murder" on the battlefield with a murder in my town. Furthermore, the responsibility for what happened in Iraq belongs to George Bush. Because even though he had ample time and counsel, he still made the wrong decision. Absent of the war in Iraq, none of this would have ever happened.

You are right when you say "either it’s our government with our knowledge and input, our responsibility, or it’s theirs..." However, it's ours, in that we must make the right choices with respect to who we choose to represent us. The general public will never be made privy to each and every aspect of national security. Because if we did that, we would cease to exist as a nation.

[westerebus]

18. What would cease to exist is government by secrecy.

The Nation would be better off for it.

[Creative]

19. Your response is saturated with naivety.

[westerebus]

20. Well I'm in good company.

Nuremberg trials. They were just following orders.

Pentagon papers. We were just following orders too.

Wi ki leaks. Has anything changed yet?

[Iterate]

21. Maybe so, but people do take jobs and then learn later

that the employer was breaking the law. So they quit, as I did. Twice. OK, so I'm a slow learner. But sometimes it's serious enough that you go to court and tell the truth, which I also did.

I don't know of anyone who's said there shouldn't be secret negotiations or security secrets, but that just won't show up with cables from this level of classification. Most of it is mundane, but with a constant undercurrent of betrayal of the public trust, bullying, lies to us, cover for petty tyrants and corporations who have killed, covering for torturers and war crimes, manipulations for the wars and arms deals...and nothing yet anyway that I (or maybe anyone else on DU) could point to with pride, give a thumbs-up and a cheer. Perhaps not attacking Iran as the Saudi's wished is laudable, but that's a stretch.

The "killing" and "murder" I mentioned wasn't a tired trope equating murder with war -it came from the years shortly before Wikileaks had any documents of US interest and before they threatened US power; it was only an African tyrant who looted and murdered. No one then accused them then of espionage, or egotistical vanity, or any of the other pejoratives that have come up lately. No site shutdowns or warrants.

Have a read if you like:

Kenya, Africa, Arap Moi and the looted billions
http://www.nowpublic.com/kenya-africa-arap-moi-and-looted-billions

“WikiLeaks wins Amnesty International 2009 Media Award for exposing Extra judicial killings in Kenya”
http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=870

"Kenyans Would Vouch For Wikileaks If We Were Asked"
"It is very likely that Wikileaks turned the tide against Moi’s re-entry and possibly delegitimised Arap Moi in his backyard. What effect this had on exacerbating (by creating a leadership vacuum in R. Valley) or limiting (by disempowering instruments of violence presumed to be at Moi’s disposal) recent violence in the Rift Valley is open to question."
http://www.marsgroupkenya.org/corruption/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=443&Itemid=59

The exposure and brief openness didn't end the corruption, but it did weaken it. The murderers got rough justice. In another generation perhaps they'll have the government they want.

[ZombieHorde]

17. "These people are not heroes, they are criminals."

Hero and criminal are not mutually exclusive. Gandhi was considered to be both a hero and a criminal.

I also want to point out the irony of your pirate avatar.

[populistdriven]

12. you have no point whatsoever, pentagonpapers

[Creative]

16. The outcome of the adjudication process will prove that I do indeed, have a point.

[kgnu_fan]

2. kick

[snot]

3. NOT espionage.

Wikileaks is not spying on anyone; it's simply publishing what's brought to it.
It is not working in the service of any sovereign nation, nor is it against any particular sovereign nation.
It's not even particularly seeking to benefit itself from its use of the info brought to it. It is, in my view, working in the service of humanity.

The U.S. government has been struggling mightily to find/figure out something to charge Assange with for some time, and hasn't managed to come up with anything plausible yet, including espionage. (This is not to say they'll never charge him, of course; but they're going to have to either discover more than anyone's got now, or get extremely creative, so to speak.)

[LiberalEsto]

4. If the Westboro/Phelps lunatics are protected

by our Constitution, then Wikileaks deserves the same protection.

Instead, our government is attempting to censor Wikileaks, while letting the despicable Phelps & Co. play havoc with the funerals of countless deceased members of the U.S. military.

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. Individuals have no privacy anyway, why should governments and corporations

have it? Anybody who thinks any phone, email, or paper communication will remain permanently secret these days, is just delusional. The State Dept. (and others) should've known this could happen, and been more discreet, and more appropriate, and more limited in distribution or access in the first place. If their "secrets" got out, it's their own fault. THEY should've known better. Tough cookies for them, they failed at their jobs. But I'd say that (failure) too, is something we should know about. And now we do.

And let's not forget that it's the public's State Dept. (or Defense, whatever) after all. The public in the end, has more of a right to know, than the bureaucrats' right to not be embarrassed. Since the highlest levels of government (in the Plame case) outted life-threatening secrets itself, it cannot argue the opposite side when it cuts against them (they lack "clean hands" in a legal sense - you can't seek redress from the law when you're breaking it yourself).

But yes, agreed, WL is a media entity and deserves protection. We need WL, and more like it. It's the only phenomenon of sufficient scale to be a "check and balance" on corporate and governmental abuse of power. Which, let's face it, is a key problem today.

We individuals are spied on all the time and we have do deal with it. The "big beasts" (governments and corporations) think that's just fine, and created that problem for us. Now they have to deal with it too, from us. I think it's high time that playing field got leveled a little bit.

The coming release about the big bank is going to rock their world. That, combined with the info that just came out thanks to Sen. Sanders' amendment to the Financial Reform bill (about how much companies really received in the bailout) will change the overall picture we have of our situation, and will probably spark lots and lots of lawsuits against them... maybe leading to some actual justice someday in the not-too-distant future.

In short, as this old person has seen before in the past... just when things seem hopelessly calcified at the top there is a paradigm shift out of the blue. This could be it for this time - the game-changer that's needed to break things loose and even the balance enough for us real people to cope with the power against us for a while longer.

[Catherina]

7. Rec'd n/t

[treestar]

8. Doesn't matter who, the documents were classified

We have that for a reason.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. what crimes should the New York Times be charged with?

Let's get those bastards and grind that freedom of the press under our mighty heel. Go ahead, big boy, let's hear your logic on this one. (note: only rational arguments will be considered. Drop out now if that places too high a burden on your response)

[stray cat]

9. So you would protect and send money to fox and rush limbaugh?

[tekisui]

14. What an irrelevant and illogical leap.