If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#2Reading this article several times, I really failed to see a clear logic from the author as to why the supposed dying of Wikileaks is the NYT's fault.
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#3Reading this article several times, I really failed to see a clear logic from the author as to why the supposed dying of Wikileaks is the NYT's fault.
I think the theory is that WL was a competing news organization with the potential to replace NYT, but NYT hasn't rolled over and died, therefore blocking WL from taking its seat on the throne.
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#4"WikiLeaks is a journalistic entity and deserves our protection"
No, it's not. It lost that moral ground when it released unredacted information.
It also lost that status when wikileaks became about Assange himself.
I supported the original wikileaks: Anyone could leak anything and wikileaks would publish it, and sometimes the broader media would pick it up.
This new wikileaks is all about damaging entities Assange doesn't like. No thank you. Wikileaks should not get to choose what to leak. Either leak everything you are given (after redaction of course), or nothing, do not selectively choose who to leak against.
Once you do that you become a political organization.
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#5Reading this article several times, I really failed to see a clear logic from the author as to why the supposed dying of Wikileaks is the NYT's fault.
Agreed - it seems like more of a failed attempt at a namedrop, when more of the "blame" should be directed towards the public. If Times readers as a whole lose express interest in WikiLeaks while Assange is dealing with legal issues and many other whistleblowing sites (OpenLeaks.org as an example) haven't seem to been releasing any high-profile documents, isn't that just more the reason for the Times to focus efforts elsewhere?
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#6"WikiLeaks is a journalistic entity and deserves our protection" No, it's not. It lost that moral ground when it released unredacted information. It also lost that status when wikileaks became about Assange himself. I supported the original wikileaks: Anyone could leak anything and wikileaks would publish it, and sometimes the broader media would pick it up. This new wikileaks is all about damaging entities Assange d…
hmm? you mean like every other journalistic entity out there? Journalistic Purity aside, WikiLeaks was a journalistic entity and did deserve our protection.
We have just established a precedent that the US government can unilaterally decide to shutdown any journalistic entity that reports news it doesn't like.
What kills me about this is that people seem to support that status quo. Lots of mumbling about how wikileaks should have redacted and no outrage at all about how easy it was for this voice to be silenced by our government as soon as it suited them.
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#7"WikiLeaks is a journalistic entity and deserves our protection" No, it's not. It lost that moral ground when it released unredacted information. It also lost that status when wikileaks became about Assange himself. I supported the original wikileaks: Anyone could leak anything and wikileaks would publish it, and sometimes the broader media would pick it up. This new wikileaks is all about damaging entities Assange d…
Journalists @ the Guardian released the underacted cables.
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian-journali...
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#8"WikiLeaks is a journalistic entity and deserves our protection" No, it's not. It lost that moral ground when it released unredacted information. It also lost that status when wikileaks became about Assange himself. I supported the original wikileaks: Anyone could leak anything and wikileaks would publish it, and sometimes the broader media would pick it up. This new wikileaks is all about damaging entities Assange d…
> It lost that moral ground when it released unredacted information.
If the NYT meets the standards of "journalism", Wikileaks sure as hell does. Better to accidentally release unredacted information than the government sanitized press releases of the NYT.
> It also lost that status when wikileaks became about Assange himself.
Is this not a big part of the campaign to discredit Wikileaks? Focus on the person to hide the idea. Ideas have to be reckoned with; people can be written off ad hominem.
I'm not trying to say Wikileaks is even near perfect. The main point is that the NYT, which many see as authoritative, consistently avoids mentioning the implications of what is happening to Wikileaks.
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#9"WikiLeaks is a journalistic entity and deserves our protection" No, it's not. It lost that moral ground when it released unredacted information. It also lost that status when wikileaks became about Assange himself. I supported the original wikileaks: Anyone could leak anything and wikileaks would publish it, and sometimes the broader media would pick it up. This new wikileaks is all about damaging entities Assange d…
hmm? you mean like every other journalistic entity out there? Journalistic Purity aside, WikiLeaks was a journalistic entity and did deserve our protection. We have just established a precedent that the US government can unilaterally decide to shutdown any journalistic entity that reports news it doesn't like. What kills me about this is that people seem to support that status quo. Lots of mumbling about how wikileak…
> and no outrage at all about how easy it was for this voice to be silenced
I think it's for two reasons - a: They are not that silent - they released everything they had and the US couldn't do anything. So there isn't all that much to be outraged about.
And b: I don't think that most people actually support them (their goals) anymore. I certainly don't. I did, but not anymore.
Personally I think their leaks harmed things, and helped nothing. Especially the ones about Abbas. If people had actually believe the leaks were real and not US propaganda (yes I know how funny that sounds to you) those leaks could have easily started another Palestinian civil war (well a Fata vs Hamas war anyway).
You may argue that the leaks actually did help, but that's not the perception I have. Maybe I'm manipulated by the media, could be. But it doesn't matter - if I am, then so are lots more. And that's why people are not more outraged.
Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame
#10Reading this article several times, I really failed to see a clear logic from the author as to why the supposed dying of Wikileaks is the NYT's fault.
As the author of the post, maybe I can try and clear that up: my point was that while we have all failed to some extent -- by not supporting WikiLeaks and protesting things like the PayPal blockade and Amazon deletion and the government's dubious case -- the New York Times has failed by not using its national media platform to protest those things and their impact on free speech and freedom of the press. And my argument about why they didn't do that is in part that the NYT sees WikiLeaks as competition. Hope that helps.