3 ms·

I wholeheartedly agree - I absolutely view quality journalism as an essential part of an accountable and transparent state. Good journalism, which IMHO should

I wholeheartedly agree - I absolutely view quality journalism as an essential part of an accountable and transparent state. Good journalism, which IMHO should strive for a degree of impartiality[0], is needed to hold administrations at all levels to account. [0] humans are clearly imperfect mind

MacsHeadroom 6y ago
It doesn't get less impartial than publishing original source classified documents with little to no commentary. That's what WikiLeaks is/does. The Intercept and The Guardian add a layer of partiality/bias with narratives that paint state secrecy as inherently problematic. Somewhat paradoxically this anti-state bias in reporting makes them MORE palatable/acceptable; because their narrative justifies their role as the fourth estate of government. WikiLeaks' position is that this narrative is implicit and doesn't need reiterated with each leak. Unfortunately powerful institutions and people experience the world in narratives and the importance of the fourth estate isn't one that is strongly engrained in their thinking. So, they go after WikiLeaks because of its impartiality. WikiLeaks shouldn't have to add bias to every new publication to be legitimate. That's plainly backwards. They absolutely have the high ground here. All they need to do is paint the narrative to the courts that organizations like The Intercept paint continuously. If the courts don't accept the narrative as sufficient justification then they drive the nails in the coffin of the free press at large.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  Wikileaks 100% had a narrative, it was one of the things that disappointed me most about them. In general, I was on the side of this information needing to come out, I just really wish Wikileaks hadn't politicized it the way they did.
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    WikiLeaks has a 100:1 ratio of words in leaked documents to narrative words, at LEAST. Meanwhile The Intercept has a 1:100 ratio. You can't dismiss this difference as insignificant.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      That's a terrible metric to use. Wikileaks would time their release of information for political effect.

MacsHeadroom 6y ago

It doesn't get less impartial than publishing original source classified documents with little to no commentary. That's what WikiLeaks is/does. The Intercept and The Guardian add a layer of partiality/bias with narratives that paint state secrecy as inherently problematic. Somewhat paradoxically this anti-state bias in reporting makes them MORE palatable/acceptable; because their narrative justifies their role as the fourth estate of government. WikiLeaks' position is that this narrative is implicit and doesn't need reiterated with each leak. Unfortunately powerful institutions and people experience the world in narratives and the importance of the fourth estate isn't one that is strongly engrained in their thinking. So, they go after WikiLeaks because of its impartiality. WikiLeaks shouldn't have to add bias to every new publication to be legitimate. That's plainly backwards. They absolutely have the high ground here. All they need to do is paint the narrative to the courts that organizations like The Intercept paint continuously. If the courts don't accept the narrative as sufficient justification then they drive the nails in the coffin of the free press at large.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
Wikileaks 100% had a narrative, it was one of the things that disappointed me most about them. In general, I was on the side of this information needing to come out, I just really wish Wikileaks hadn't politicized it the way they did.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  WikiLeaks has a 100:1 ratio of words in leaked documents to narrative words, at LEAST. Meanwhile The Intercept has a 1:100 ratio. You can't dismiss this difference as insignificant.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    That's a terrible metric to use. Wikileaks would time their release of information for political effect.