3 ms·

Now I'm uptight? I raise a valid point -- journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations, they report. I have never seen a journalistic articl

by magoon 14y ago

Now I'm uptight? I raise a valid point -- journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations, they report. I have never seen a journalistic article from Wikileaks, much as I have never seen a journalist simply distribute a bunch of private conversations with no story.

trevelyan 14y ago
> journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations Perhaps you have heard of the terms "public service" and "public sector"? Government documents are not private conversations and I am genuinely appalled you believe yourself entitled to speak on only those matters your government deems fit for public discourse.
magoon 14y ago
> Government documents are not private conversations. huh? if they weren't private, then why were they newsworthy?
- trevelyan 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
glesica 14y ago
Seems like a meaningless difference to me. You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism? Wikileaks presented information, just because that information wasn't in a form that you are comfortable and familiar with doesn't make it not journalism. No one had ever seen a journalist who published exclusively online until a few years ago and many people claimed that wasn't "journalism". Now bloggers are pretty well-recognized. The volume of information is so large today that a new form of journalism is required. Wikileaks has provided that, or at least led the charge to provide it. Wikileaks acted as a clearinghouse for raw information. Then others read it, interpreted it and wrote about it. I don't see the problem.
- magoon 14y ago
  > You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism? Um...yeah
  - glesica 14y ago
    But what's the difference? We're big kids, we can read the documents for ourselves. Or we can wait and let another news outlet read them and interpret them for us. I just don't see this as being a meaningful difference.
natrius 14y ago
Sorry, you're wrong. Getting information to the public is journalism. It's usually better to go beyond raw information to do so, but making the information itself more accessible than it was before (because it was secret, for instance) is very valuable. I spent a couple of years doing that in a newsroom.

by magoon 14y ago

trevelyan 14y ago

> journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations Perhaps you have heard of the terms "public service" and "public sector"? Government documents are not private conversations and I am genuinely appalled you believe yourself entitled to speak on only those matters your government deems fit for public discourse.

magoon 14y ago

> Government documents are not private conversations. huh? if they weren't private, then why were they newsworthy?

trevelyan 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

glesica 14y ago

Seems like a meaningless difference to me. You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism? Wikileaks presented information, just because that information wasn't in a form that you are comfortable and familiar with doesn't make it not journalism. No one had ever seen a journalist who published exclusively online until a few years ago and many people claimed that wasn't "journalism". Now bloggers are pretty well-recognized. The volume of information is so large today that a new form of journalism is required. Wikileaks has provided that, or at least led the charge to provide it. Wikileaks acted as a clearinghouse for raw information. Then others read it, interpreted it and wrote about it. I don't see the problem.

magoon 14y ago
> You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism? Um...yeah
- glesica 14y ago
  But what's the difference? We're big kids, we can read the documents for ourselves. Or we can wait and let another news outlet read them and interpret them for us. I just don't see this as being a meaningful difference.

natrius 14y ago

Sorry, you're wrong. Getting information to the public is journalism. It's usually better to go beyond raw information to do so, but making the information itself more accessible than it was before (because it was secret, for instance) is very valuable. I spent a couple of years doing that in a newsroom.