5 ms·

> The Times is very ethical organization. Wikileaks tells us otherwise.

by treehau5 10y ago

swang 10y ago
Who watches the wikileaks?
- erichocean 10y ago
  Since Wikileaks is publishing other people's private information—as opposed to "news" or "journalism"—the only thing to "watch" is if what they are publishing has been altered or not (or was made up out of whole cloth). To the best of my knowledge, there are no known instance of Wikileaks publishing fraudulent or altered information.
  - jk563 10y ago
    It would be suicide for them to do that. Not ruling it out, but if they get caught one time it calls into question everything they've ever released.
  - eivarv 10y ago
    Outright lies isn't the only danger, though. What they hold back, what they publish and when they publish it can potentially be abused - for instance to present or enhance one narrative, and obscure another. And Wikileaks itself could be used as a tool by other actors ( e.g. for political gain) via strategic leaks or somesuch…
  - phereford 10y ago
    While Wikileaks may not alter any of the information they are given, it is plausible that their sources have the ability to alter documents before sending to Wikileaks. The only newsworthy item I have seen was this: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Y2WY http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Y2WY Of course nothing has come of this speculation, so it may end up being nothing. My last $.02, given the sensitive nature of some of the information that Wikileaks releases, there is probably no avenue for corroborating the materials other than, maybe, how the source received said materials.
untog 10y ago
What - exactly - did the DNC leaks show in this regard? All I ever found anyone say is "oh they're in cahoots" without ever being able to point me to something specific.
- SilasX 10y ago
  It was something of a pain to get the URL with googles AMP, but I found this, which showed journalists crossing boundaries and getting too friendly with DNC insiders: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/hills-shills-leaks-have-exposed-journalists-in-clintons-corner/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/hills-shills-leaks-have-ex...
  - untog 10y ago
    That seems to describe an NYT journalist emailing members of the Hillary team and talking about their candidate in positive terms. Maybe I don't expect enough of journalists, but I'm not really seeing the scandal there. Buttering up a source by talking positively about their candidate seems... sensible?
    - SilasX 10y ago
      Fair enough. If this is limited to that kind of flattery (and I haven't read enough to verify either way) then we can write that off as good ol-fashioned "working a source" and not particularly worrisome.
  - treehau5 10y ago
    (I can't reply to untog since it is too deep in the thread but this in reply to their comment) When you are professedly a journalist, you are to report the facts unbiased, not get friendly and in bed with campaign insiders, running your pieces by them to get their opinion. There are many more heinous emails than the ones linked by parent, specifically some that are exchanges making sure the narrative that was going to be published "sounded good" to the Hillary camp. That's not journalism. It's propaganda. My own observation: the fact that we have to get apologetic about this behavior further proves the point.
donohoe 10y ago
No. Wikileaks show that reporters communicate by email. It showed that reporters, as professional courtesy to sources and subjects, give a heads up when stories are running. This is not new, and applied to Trump and past GOP presidential campaigns.
- treehau5 10y ago
  Oh, professional courtesy, that's what we call it now. A heads up is one thing, running the details of the narrative and making sure the two line up is another. It's the journalists job to determine what stories need to be told, not the campaign directors.

> The Times is very ethical organization. Wikileaks tells us otherwise.

swang 10y ago

Who watches the wikileaks?

erichocean 10y ago
Since Wikileaks is publishing other people's private information—as opposed to "news" or "journalism"—the only thing to "watch" is if what they are publishing has been altered or not (or was made up out of whole cloth). To the best of my knowledge, there are no known instance of Wikileaks publishing fraudulent or altered information.
- jk563 10y ago
  It would be suicide for them to do that. Not ruling it out, but if they get caught one time it calls into question everything they've ever released.
- eivarv 10y ago
  Outright lies isn't the only danger, though. What they hold back, what they publish and when they publish it can potentially be abused - for instance to present or enhance one narrative, and obscure another. And Wikileaks itself could be used as a tool by other actors ( e.g. for political gain) via strategic leaks or somesuch…
- phereford 10y ago
  While Wikileaks may not alter any of the information they are given, it is plausible that their sources have the ability to alter documents before sending to Wikileaks. The only newsworthy item I have seen was this: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Y2WY http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12Y2WY Of course nothing has come of this speculation, so it may end up being nothing. My last $.02, given the sensitive nature of some of the information that Wikileaks releases, there is probably no avenue for corroborating the materials other than, maybe, how the source received said materials.

untog 10y ago

What - exactly - did the DNC leaks show in this regard? All I ever found anyone say is "oh they're in cahoots" without ever being able to point me to something specific.

SilasX 10y ago
It was something of a pain to get the URL with googles AMP, but I found this, which showed journalists crossing boundaries and getting too friendly with DNC insiders: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/hills-shills-leaks-have-exposed-journalists-in-clintons-corner/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/hills-shills-leaks-have-ex...
- untog 10y ago
  That seems to describe an NYT journalist emailing members of the Hillary team and talking about their candidate in positive terms. Maybe I don't expect enough of journalists, but I'm not really seeing the scandal there. Buttering up a source by talking positively about their candidate seems... sensible?
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Fair enough. If this is limited to that kind of flattery (and I haven't read enough to verify either way) then we can write that off as good ol-fashioned "working a source" and not particularly worrisome.
- treehau5 10y ago
  (I can't reply to untog since it is too deep in the thread but this in reply to their comment) When you are professedly a journalist, you are to report the facts unbiased, not get friendly and in bed with campaign insiders, running your pieces by them to get their opinion. There are many more heinous emails than the ones linked by parent, specifically some that are exchanges making sure the narrative that was going to be published "sounded good" to the Hillary camp. That's not journalism. It's propaganda. My own observation: the fact that we have to get apologetic about this behavior further proves the point.

donohoe 10y ago

No. Wikileaks show that reporters communicate by email. It showed that reporters, as professional courtesy to sources and subjects, give a heads up when stories are running. This is not new, and applied to Trump and past GOP presidential campaigns.

treehau5 10y ago
Oh, professional courtesy, that's what we call it now. A heads up is one thing, running the details of the narrative and making sure the two line up is another. It's the journalists job to determine what stories need to be told, not the campaign directors.