5 ms·

I'm fairly sure those behind Wikileaks are as concerned about their opinion in the eyes of the press as much as we'd still care what an elementary school teache

by theDoug 16y ago

I'm fairly sure those behind Wikileaks are as concerned about their opinion in the eyes of the press as much as we'd still care what an elementary school teacher thinks about our penmanship. Apart from using Knight as a possible funding source, I assume the whole purpose of the Wikileaks project is to move beyond the realm of requiring a handful of national newspapers and a few wire services to give the news to local outlets too lazy (or poor) to do their own investigations.

eli 16y ago
I couldn't disagree more. Those behind wikileaks are obviously very concerned about how they appear to others. Did you read the New Yorker profile of Julian Assange a few weeks back? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_... Wikileaks is an interesting and (I think) mostly beneficial presence in the world. But it's activism not journalism.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  But it's activism not journalism. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here. If the journalism industry did its job properly, there would be no reason for Wikileaks to exist; they would (literally) have nothing to add to the conversation. But journalists are not doing their jobs properly, and so there are opportunities for Wikileaks to contribute to the public discourse. Wikileaks does some journalism. They might be doing activism at the same time, but that does not mean they're not also engaged in journalism. I think Greg Sargent's perspective on the "partisan" versus "objective" journalists might be relevant here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/a_little_message_to_jeffrey_go.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/a_little_...
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    > If the journalism industry did its job properly, there would be no reason for Wikileaks to exist; Not true. Journalists still have to work within the laws of their country (and possibly, if they want to travel, the laws of others too). Entities like Wikileaks will always be able to push the boundaries further. (that's not to say the journalism industry isn't pretty hopeless) I think Wikileaks does both journalism and activism; nowadays probably more of the latter than the former.
    - bluedanieru 16y ago
      You have a point, but not all the failures of contemporary journalism are due to strict laws, or some such. Nothing coming out of anything owned by News Corp. falls into that category, for example.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Oh absolutely (which is sort of what I meant with: that's not to say the journalism industry isn't pretty hopeless). Journalism is getting worse (in general anyway) and more "trashy". Sadly that is probably less driven by constriction of press freedom (or whatever) as it is by the populace hankering after worthless trash :(
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  Advocacy journalism is still journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism
- Rod 16y ago
  "Nowadays, journalism all over the world is becoming part of the entertainment industry. It's becoming a circus. And in doing so it is forfeiting the constitutional role it had in a free society. This role was to educate, not to entertain." - Amos Elon WikiLeaks is necessary because, generally speaking, journalists no longer monitor the centers of power. If what WikiLeaks does is activism, then mainstream journalism is propaganda. You are playing with semantics. The truth is the truth, and revealing the truth is almost always noble, regardless of the mechanism being used to reveal such truth. If the powers that be use the media to deceive the masses and that is called journalism, then journalism is itself biased, which invalidates pseudo-moral arguments against WikiLeaks' bias.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  I tend to agree that it is not journalism. I also fully agree that we are seeing very little journalism around. I think Wikileaks fails the journalism test because they are not telling the stories behind the leaks. Those stories are what cause people to change. I also think Wikileaks could do a better job than saying "anything that is secret, we will publish." If they want to be relevant, they should be deciding if it actually matters and will impact the public discourse.

by theDoug 16y ago

eli 16y ago

I couldn't disagree more. Those behind wikileaks are obviously very concerned about how they appear to others. Did you read the New Yorker profile of Julian Assange a few weeks back? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_... Wikileaks is an interesting and (I think) mostly beneficial presence in the world. But it's activism not journalism.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
But it's activism not journalism. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here. If the journalism industry did its job properly, there would be no reason for Wikileaks to exist; they would (literally) have nothing to add to the conversation. But journalists are not doing their jobs properly, and so there are opportunities for Wikileaks to contribute to the public discourse. Wikileaks does some journalism. They might be doing activism at the same time, but that does not mean they're not also engaged in journalism. I think Greg Sargent's perspective on the "partisan" versus "objective" journalists might be relevant here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/a_little_message_to_jeffrey_go.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/a_little_...
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > If the journalism industry did its job properly, there would be no reason for Wikileaks to exist; Not true. Journalists still have to work within the laws of their country (and possibly, if they want to travel, the laws of others too). Entities like Wikileaks will always be able to push the boundaries further. (that's not to say the journalism industry isn't pretty hopeless) I think Wikileaks does both journalism and activism; nowadays probably more of the latter than the former.
  - bluedanieru 16y ago
    You have a point, but not all the failures of contemporary journalism are due to strict laws, or some such. Nothing coming out of anything owned by News Corp. falls into that category, for example.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Oh absolutely (which is sort of what I meant with: that's not to say the journalism industry isn't pretty hopeless). Journalism is getting worse (in general anyway) and more "trashy". Sadly that is probably less driven by constriction of press freedom (or whatever) as it is by the populace hankering after worthless trash :(
RyanMcGreal 16y ago
Advocacy journalism is still journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism
Rod 16y ago
"Nowadays, journalism all over the world is becoming part of the entertainment industry. It's becoming a circus. And in doing so it is forfeiting the constitutional role it had in a free society. This role was to educate, not to entertain." - Amos Elon WikiLeaks is necessary because, generally speaking, journalists no longer monitor the centers of power. If what WikiLeaks does is activism, then mainstream journalism is propaganda. You are playing with semantics. The truth is the truth, and revealing the truth is almost always noble, regardless of the mechanism being used to reveal such truth. If the powers that be use the media to deceive the masses and that is called journalism, then journalism is itself biased, which invalidates pseudo-moral arguments against WikiLeaks' bias.
SoftwareMaven 16y ago
I tend to agree that it is not journalism. I also fully agree that we are seeing very little journalism around. I think Wikileaks fails the journalism test because they are not telling the stories behind the leaks. Those stories are what cause people to change. I also think Wikileaks could do a better job than saying "anything that is secret, we will publish." If they want to be relevant, they should be deciding if it actually matters and will impact the public discourse.