3 ms·

> Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. T

> Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. There's (luckily) no exams (yet) for what makes a journalist. Someone who has a blog is no less a journalist than anyone at a national newspaper. > They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing Actually it is. That's why intention is regularly taken into account in court cases and it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact and if needed even via the Pentagon. > but we couldn’t, so we did the wrong thing instead. They did no 'wrong' thing instead. They tried to consult the U.S. Government about any needed redactions and then published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name. Not publishing that would've been wrong and was most likely the goal of the Pentagon in not cooperating. Is similar with zero days, researchers publish them if the vendor doesn't cooperate because not doing so and letting black hats exploit a known bug is way more 'wrong' than publishing the 0day widely is.

pdonis 6y ago
> it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact No, it shows that Wikileaks can be just as disingenuous as any other "journalistic" organization. Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault, not Wikileaks's fault, that the names got published. That's not "responsible journalism"; it's Wikileaks playing power politics just like governments and the media do. > published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name. They chose not to do it that way.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault It's the U.S. government who committed war crimes here and used secrecy to conceal their crimes. Of course it's the U.S. government's fault. The option to not commit war crimes and use the secrets act to conceal it was there. They didn't take it. The U.S. Government proved it will use 'top secret' to hide not only information that is actually top secret but also information that is embarrassing. This would be a pretty clear motivator for the Pentagon not to respond and for WikiLeaks to go ahead with the publication. > Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name. No. Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Most leaks are published with names in them. There are names that the U.S. government could have suggested (not demand) to be redacted and WikiLeaks could have agreed to either some or all of the requests. They refused to cooperate. It's pretty clearly on them. I also love how the people exposing war crimes are getting more heat that the actual war criminals who never spent a day behind bars. Speaks volumes.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > it's the U.S. government's fault Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right. > Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps. Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right. Between the two wrongs, am going to focus on the one where the most powerful military on Earth guns down civilians & journalists. Especially given Julian has already paid dearly for exposing what we should have known. The war criminals themselves haven't spent a day behind bars. > Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no. WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them. The Pentagon refused. This is on them, as are the war crimes themselves.

pdonis 6y ago

> it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact No, it shows that Wikileaks can be just as disingenuous as any other "journalistic" organization. Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault, not Wikileaks's fault, that the names got published. That's not "responsible journalism"; it's Wikileaks playing power politics just like governments and the media do. > published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name. They chose not to do it that way.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault It's the U.S. government who committed war crimes here and used secrecy to conceal their crimes. Of course it's the U.S. government's fault. The option to not commit war crimes and use the secrets act to conceal it was there. They didn't take it. The U.S. Government proved it will use 'top secret' to hide not only information that is actually top secret but also information that is embarrassing. This would be a pretty clear motivator for the Pentagon not to respond and for WikiLeaks to go ahead with the publication. > Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name. No. Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Most leaks are published with names in them. There are names that the U.S. government could have suggested (not demand) to be redacted and WikiLeaks could have agreed to either some or all of the requests. They refused to cooperate. It's pretty clearly on them. I also love how the people exposing war crimes are getting more heat that the actual war criminals who never spent a day behind bars. Speaks volumes.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > it's the U.S. government's fault Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right. > Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps. Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right. Between the two wrongs, am going to focus on the one where the most powerful military on Earth guns down civilians & journalists. Especially given Julian has already paid dearly for exposing what we should have known. The war criminals themselves haven't spent a day behind bars. > Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no. WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them. The Pentagon refused. This is on them, as are the war crimes themselves.