3 ms·

Seriously, I have a hard time accepting a lack of editorializing as a serious argument in favor of Wikileaks. Collateral Murder was editorialized to the point t

Seriously, I have a hard time accepting a lack of editorializing as a serious argument in favor of Wikileaks. Collateral Murder was editorialized to the point that it hurt Wikileaks' credibility, if anything. Yes, we got the raw information as well, but often after highly publicized, deeply editorialized publicity stunts. I agree with the premise of the headline: an organization like Wikileaks is incredibly valuable to a functional and transparent democracy. Wikileaks itself, however, suffers from far too many fundamental problems to serve as anything other than a vague outline of what such an organization should be.

noblethrasher 13y ago
To be fair, Assange advocates what he calls “scientific journalism”[1] in which the editorialized piece is presented along with the raw and unedited primary source(s)†. He also acknowledges that Wikileaks is an “activist organization” that uses “transparency as its method”[2]. I do not necessarily agree with the editorial voice of Wikileaks but the style of journalism that it promotes is obviously a Good Thing. [1] http://goo.gl/GGJWz http://goo.gl/GGJWz [2] http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/logan-symposium-explores-new-models-for-investigative-reporting108 http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/logan-symposium-explor... † Redaction to protect the life and/or livelihood is an exception. EDIT: I meant “kind of journalism” rather than “style of journalism”.
- commandar 13y ago
  >but the style of journalism that it promotes is obviously a Good Thing. I very much disagree. The type of editorializing Wikileaks engages in fundamentally undermines their credibility as an information clearing house. When the raw information takes a back seat to the editorial content, it makes it easier for those that would seek to suppress that information to discredit them as a source. It simply comes down to trust, and I have personal issues trusting a source that has a stated goal of editing and framing the information they release to suit their agenda. The Collateral Murder release really is a great example of some of the many issues with Wikileaks' approach. It deliberately presents the footage out of context with post-hoc commentary that frames the entire thing in a pretty misleading light, all wrapped up in an intentionally incendiary title. And the real tragedy of that? The story behind the footage is tragic enough that it doesn't need that sort of spin to be effective. Wikileaks tried to tack on claims of deliberate maliciousness to what is, in reality, a clear illustration of the brutal, wasteful, and confusing nature of war in the real world. And, by doing so, Wikileaks made it easier for their critics to dismiss them as propagandists since that's essentially what they were engaging in. I want an information clearing house that I can trust to simply perform the role of disseminating information while protecting themselves and their sources. I simply don't believe that such a clearing house can be trusted and taken seriously while also pushing an editorial agenda.
  - noblethrasher 13y ago
    Wikileaks has two audiences: the people that agree with its editorial voice and the people that are interested in the raw data. The former are not going to be easily dissuaded from taking Wikileaks seriously because of loyalty (perhaps misguided), nor will the latter because you cannot discredit raw data (except for denying its provenance). Furthermore, by providing the raw data, scientific journalist give other organizations a chance to provide alternative context and/or analysis.
    - commandar 13y ago
      >Wikileaks has two audiences: the people that agree with its editorial voice and the people that are interested in the raw data. This borderlines on being paternalistic in overlooking another audience -- arguably the most important one for an information clearing house -- those whose opinions can be swayed by new information if they trust the source of that information. Engaging in editorial commentary that overshadows the content of the actual data undermines that trust in a very real way. When you're pushing an editorial agenda, people are going to dismiss the data because it's coming from a source they consider ultimately untrustworthy. >Furthermore, by providing the raw data, scientific journalist give other organizations a chance to provide alternative context and/or analysis. This is exactly why the clearing house and the editorial voice need to be separate entities. If the data is available, then anyone is free to (and will) perform analysis on it without tainting the data itself with the reputation of agenda of the organization releasing it.
      - noblethrasher 13y ago
        The trustworthiness of data is a function of its provenance, not its accompanying analysis or commentary. Conversely, the trustworthiness of information (i.e. analysis and commentary) is a function of the degree of bias of the source and not the data that informs it. If the raw data is universally accessible then there should be no shortage of trustworthy information sources for the third audience you mention. Unbiased sources are ideal but that’s too much to hope for, so the next best thing for that audience is to consult a multitude of sources that are known to be examining the same data. Finally, I do not think Wikileaks is ideal (I prefer something more like what Nate Silver does). But I take it as axiomatic that a free press — even one with an editorial voice — is a Good Thing. A journalistic organization that also releases its sources is a Better Thing and hence must also be a Good Thing.

noblethrasher 13y ago

To be fair, Assange advocates what he calls “scientific journalism”[1] in which the editorialized piece is presented along with the raw and unedited primary source(s)†. He also acknowledges that Wikileaks is an “activist organization” that uses “transparency as its method”[2]. I do not necessarily agree with the editorial voice of Wikileaks but the style of journalism that it promotes is obviously a Good Thing. [1] http://goo.gl/GGJWz http://goo.gl/GGJWz [2] http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/logan-symposium-explores-new-models-for-investigative-reporting108 http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/logan-symposium-explor... † Redaction to protect the life and/or livelihood is an exception. EDIT: I meant “kind of journalism” rather than “style of journalism”.

commandar 13y ago
>but the style of journalism that it promotes is obviously a Good Thing. I very much disagree. The type of editorializing Wikileaks engages in fundamentally undermines their credibility as an information clearing house. When the raw information takes a back seat to the editorial content, it makes it easier for those that would seek to suppress that information to discredit them as a source. It simply comes down to trust, and I have personal issues trusting a source that has a stated goal of editing and framing the information they release to suit their agenda. The Collateral Murder release really is a great example of some of the many issues with Wikileaks' approach. It deliberately presents the footage out of context with post-hoc commentary that frames the entire thing in a pretty misleading light, all wrapped up in an intentionally incendiary title. And the real tragedy of that? The story behind the footage is tragic enough that it doesn't need that sort of spin to be effective. Wikileaks tried to tack on claims of deliberate maliciousness to what is, in reality, a clear illustration of the brutal, wasteful, and confusing nature of war in the real world. And, by doing so, Wikileaks made it easier for their critics to dismiss them as propagandists since that's essentially what they were engaging in. I want an information clearing house that I can trust to simply perform the role of disseminating information while protecting themselves and their sources. I simply don't believe that such a clearing house can be trusted and taken seriously while also pushing an editorial agenda.
- noblethrasher 13y ago
  Wikileaks has two audiences: the people that agree with its editorial voice and the people that are interested in the raw data. The former are not going to be easily dissuaded from taking Wikileaks seriously because of loyalty (perhaps misguided), nor will the latter because you cannot discredit raw data (except for denying its provenance). Furthermore, by providing the raw data, scientific journalist give other organizations a chance to provide alternative context and/or analysis.
  - commandar 13y ago
    >Wikileaks has two audiences: the people that agree with its editorial voice and the people that are interested in the raw data. This borderlines on being paternalistic in overlooking another audience -- arguably the most important one for an information clearing house -- those whose opinions can be swayed by new information if they trust the source of that information. Engaging in editorial commentary that overshadows the content of the actual data undermines that trust in a very real way. When you're pushing an editorial agenda, people are going to dismiss the data because it's coming from a source they consider ultimately untrustworthy. >Furthermore, by providing the raw data, scientific journalist give other organizations a chance to provide alternative context and/or analysis. This is exactly why the clearing house and the editorial voice need to be separate entities. If the data is available, then anyone is free to (and will) perform analysis on it without tainting the data itself with the reputation of agenda of the organization releasing it.
    - noblethrasher 13y ago
      The trustworthiness of data is a function of its provenance, not its accompanying analysis or commentary. Conversely, the trustworthiness of information (i.e. analysis and commentary) is a function of the degree of bias of the source and not the data that informs it. If the raw data is universally accessible then there should be no shortage of trustworthy information sources for the third audience you mention. Unbiased sources are ideal but that’s too much to hope for, so the next best thing for that audience is to consult a multitude of sources that are known to be examining the same data. Finally, I do not think Wikileaks is ideal (I prefer something more like what Nate Silver does). But I take it as axiomatic that a free press — even one with an editorial voice — is a Good Thing. A journalistic organization that also releases its sources is a Better Thing and hence must also be a Good Thing.