7 ms·

I think it's very dangerous to define and describe WikiLeaks as 'a news organization'. News organizations curate and editorialize content - I hope that WikiLea

by dotBen 16y ago

I think it's very dangerous to define and describe WikiLeaks as 'a news organization'. News organizations curate and editorialize content - I hope that WikiLeaks doesn't editorialize their content (I know Julian Assange has talked about 'getting PR for leakers' as a motive, which is concerning). We're still working out what WikiLeaks is as their model is basically something new for the mainstream world that they have not seen before.

api 16y ago
Sure news organizations curate and editorialize content... they ask "is this the official party line?" If the answer is no, they don't print it.
- dotBen 16y ago
  Some do. Ok, most do. I spent 6 years working for BBC News and I didn't see that happen there. But it's a non-corporate news provider.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I really doubt that many consciously ask whether something fits "the party line". They mostly introduce bias subconsciously in their decisions about what is and isn't "news". Politician A accidentally says something stupid and it's ignored. Politician B accidentally says something stupid and it's "Politician B's Latest Gaffe" on the front page. (Why yes, I do have a specific Politican B in mind, but shan't mention any names to avoid off-topic discussions.) Anyway, it's odd that you would think that being a "non-corporate news provider" would insulate the BBC from bias. What about the natural groupthink which tends to accumulate in organizations insulated from real-world concerns?
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    I wonder when and where? I'm generally a big fan of the BBC but it's not completely above the fray. Thinking back to times I've been living in the UK and the country has gone into war (most recently Iraq), the BBC reported on the political leadup reasonably even-handedly, but as soon as the shooting started Paxman took a break from Newsnight and instead we got Peter Snow running around a giant table with toy tanks on it (Americans: you switch on expecting PBS but get CNN instead).
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Whereas I would, on the other hand, say the BBC was anti-war biased from day one. Which just goes to prove that "unbiased" journalism is impossible, since people only percieve bias when it disagrees with their own biases. It's worth noting that even wikipedia doesn't attempt to be "unbiased" but makes the weaker claim to have a "neutral point of view". And it can only achieve that state via continuous edit wars between people holding all major points of view. And even then it's only an ideal, not a description of the state of wikipedia at any given time.
      - sprout 16y ago
        People perceive bias in the absence of bias. I remember in 2004 when Bush was re-elected, the local paper ran with the headline "Four More Years" and a smiling picture from Bush's victory party. People wrote in and complained that it was a biased headline. They had imagined that the editor who wrote that wrote it with a heavy heart - even though Bush supporters themselves were chanting "four more years" to rally the troops at campaign events.
      - arethuza 16y ago
        "BBC was anti-war biased from day one" My recollection is that the BBC was not biased against previous wars - and I can recall the Falklands & the first Gulf War fairly well. However, for the Second Gulf War they did keep asking "why are we going to war?" - which as it turns out was a perfectly valid question as the justifications for the war (and especially for UK involvement) ranged from rather weak arguments (Saddam is bad) through to outright lies (involvement with 9/11 or WMD). So if the BBC is biased it seems to be biased in favour of the truth.
hugh3 16y ago
I hope that WikiLeaks doesn't editorialize their content (I know Julian Assange has talked about 'getting PR for leakers' as a motive, which is concerning). Wasn't it wikileaks which added the somewhat dubious "interpretation" captions etc to the video which they chose to call "collateral murder"?
ugh 16y ago
But Wikileaks does curate and (to a lesser extent) editorialize. I don’t think that’s a bad things. News organizations without any curation are a pipe dream.
- notahacker 16y ago
  Not an entirely impossible pipe dream though - I'm sure it would be feasible to blur the boundaries between news publishing and anarchic internet fora by algorithmically relegate misleading or non-newsworthy submissions based purely on user preferences.
w1ntermute 16y ago
I hope that WikiLeaks doesn't editorialize their content AFAIK, they don't. For example, in the case of the Afghanistan war logs, they provided the logs to the NYT, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel and left the editorializing up to them.
rdtsc 16y ago
News organizations curate and editorialize content. I guess if you take the Orwellian interpretation. Perhaps the original interpretation fits them best because they just provide the bare documents as the do not editorialize. In other words "new organizations are organization that do nothing but provide news". Of course editorializing takes places when selecting the content. But hopefully the "wiki" part of "wikileaks" is emphasized enough to that everything is available to everyone and the readers get to decide that is more newsworthy for them.

by dotBen 16y ago

api 16y ago

Sure news organizations curate and editorialize content... they ask "is this the official party line?" If the answer is no, they don't print it.

dotBen 16y ago
Some do. Ok, most do. I spent 6 years working for BBC News and I didn't see that happen there. But it's a non-corporate news provider.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I really doubt that many consciously ask whether something fits "the party line". They mostly introduce bias subconsciously in their decisions about what is and isn't "news". Politician A accidentally says something stupid and it's ignored. Politician B accidentally says something stupid and it's "Politician B's Latest Gaffe" on the front page. (Why yes, I do have a specific Politican B in mind, but shan't mention any names to avoid off-topic discussions.) Anyway, it's odd that you would think that being a "non-corporate news provider" would insulate the BBC from bias. What about the natural groupthink which tends to accumulate in organizations insulated from real-world concerns?
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  I wonder when and where? I'm generally a big fan of the BBC but it's not completely above the fray. Thinking back to times I've been living in the UK and the country has gone into war (most recently Iraq), the BBC reported on the political leadup reasonably even-handedly, but as soon as the shooting started Paxman took a break from Newsnight and instead we got Peter Snow running around a giant table with toy tanks on it (Americans: you switch on expecting PBS but get CNN instead).
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Whereas I would, on the other hand, say the BBC was anti-war biased from day one. Which just goes to prove that "unbiased" journalism is impossible, since people only percieve bias when it disagrees with their own biases. It's worth noting that even wikipedia doesn't attempt to be "unbiased" but makes the weaker claim to have a "neutral point of view". And it can only achieve that state via continuous edit wars between people holding all major points of view. And even then it's only an ideal, not a description of the state of wikipedia at any given time.
    - sprout 16y ago
      People perceive bias in the absence of bias. I remember in 2004 when Bush was re-elected, the local paper ran with the headline "Four More Years" and a smiling picture from Bush's victory party. People wrote in and complained that it was a biased headline. They had imagined that the editor who wrote that wrote it with a heavy heart - even though Bush supporters themselves were chanting "four more years" to rally the troops at campaign events.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      "BBC was anti-war biased from day one" My recollection is that the BBC was not biased against previous wars - and I can recall the Falklands & the first Gulf War fairly well. However, for the Second Gulf War they did keep asking "why are we going to war?" - which as it turns out was a perfectly valid question as the justifications for the war (and especially for UK involvement) ranged from rather weak arguments (Saddam is bad) through to outright lies (involvement with 9/11 or WMD). So if the BBC is biased it seems to be biased in favour of the truth.

hugh3 16y ago

I hope that WikiLeaks doesn't editorialize their content (I know Julian Assange has talked about 'getting PR for leakers' as a motive, which is concerning). Wasn't it wikileaks which added the somewhat dubious "interpretation" captions etc to the video which they chose to call "collateral murder"?

ugh 16y ago

But Wikileaks does curate and (to a lesser extent) editorialize. I don’t think that’s a bad things. News organizations without any curation are a pipe dream.

notahacker 16y ago
Not an entirely impossible pipe dream though - I'm sure it would be feasible to blur the boundaries between news publishing and anarchic internet fora by algorithmically relegate misleading or non-newsworthy submissions based purely on user preferences.

w1ntermute 16y ago

I hope that WikiLeaks doesn't editorialize their content AFAIK, they don't. For example, in the case of the Afghanistan war logs, they provided the logs to the NYT, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel and left the editorializing up to them.

rdtsc 16y ago

News organizations curate and editorialize content. I guess if you take the Orwellian interpretation. Perhaps the original interpretation fits them best because they just provide the bare documents as the do not editorialize. In other words "new organizations are organization that do nothing but provide news". Of course editorializing takes places when selecting the content. But hopefully the "wiki" part of "wikileaks" is emphasized enough to that everything is available to everyone and the readers get to decide that is more newsworthy for them.