3 ms·
I think there is currently no other alternative than to appear to be a brand-name organization, in order to encourage whistleblowers. These people need to know
by dsplittgerber 17y ago
I think there is currently no other alternative than to appear to be a brand-name organization, in order to encourage whistleblowers. These people need to know that their submissions are secure, their name withheld forever and their contribution exposed to the public. This would not happen at all without some amount of editorializing in order to broaden the mass appeal. I'm not condoning Wikileaks' behavior - I just see no currently viable alternative for whistleblowing.
Deep Throat was seriously editorialized as well. Wikileaks is a step in the right direction, towards more openness. Absolute openness will take some time.
- ErrantX 17y agoHonestly I'd accept their actions more if they split the media side of things from the whistleblower side. So Wikileaks stays as simply a conduit of information - and Sunshine Press (or whatever) can editorialize how they wish....
- dsplittgerber 17y agoTotally agree, great idea. They should split the procurement part from the editorializing through chinese walls or something like that. It's interesting to see how they changed course. Some months ago they talked about giving some media (interested, big outlets) privileged prior access to leaks in order to enable them to prepare complete stories to be released at the same date as the leak. Looks like they think they can do a better job of editorializing than the big outlets, which weakens their neutrality. But it's a difficult job after all. Hopefully, they'll change course again.