Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#11

Post by tptacek »

mathewi wrote: post #10
vph wrote: post #2

Reading 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 argum…

What about the people among us who don't think that Wikileaks is a good thing to support?

What if there are more people who think that than message board sentiment analysis would lead you to believe?

What if the New York Times simply doesn't agree with your take --- ok, the popular take on places like HN --- about Wikileaks?

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#12

Post by [deleted] »

bandushrew wrote: post #6
ars wrote: post #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 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…

[deleted]

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#13

Post by tptacek »

mindslight wrote: post #8
ars wrote: post #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 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…

When people say the New York Times does "journalism", one of the unspoken connotations of that is that they are paying actual highly-qualified people to travel across the world, often into war zones and scenes of chaos and disaster, to record and report events firsthand.

It is awfully hard to even formulate an argument that the New York Times isn't a journalistic organization.

On the other hand, it is not as difficult to formulate an argument that Wikileaks staff aren't journalists. You are very unlikely to agree with those arguments, and I respect that. I have a lot of friends who ardently support Wikileaks and think no less of them for it.

But I have a problem with putting Wikileaks on the exact same level as The New York Times. They simply aren't on the same level.

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#14

Post by mathewi »

tptacek wrote: post #11
mathewi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argum…

What about the people among us who don't think that Wikileaks is a good thing to support? What if there are more people who think that than message board sentiment analysis would lead you to believe? What if the New York Times simply doesn't agree with your take --- ok, the popular take on places like HN --- about Wikileaks?

The article was my opinion -- obviously you are entitled to your own :-)

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#15

Post by mathewi »

tptacek wrote: post #13
mindslight wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

When people say the New York Times does "journalism", one of the unspoken connotations of that is that they are paying actual highly-qualified people to travel across the world, often into war zones and scenes of chaos and disaster, to record and report events firsthand. It is awfully hard to even formulate an argument that the New York Times isn't a journalistic organization. On the other hand, it is not as difficul…

They don't have to be on the same level -- they both simply have to be engaged in the practice of journalism. And is the fact that they send people around the globe what makes them a journalistic entity? No. It's that they publish information that is important in some way, which is exactly what WikiLeaks does -- which makes them deserving of the same protection as the New York Times.

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#16

Post by lwat »

ars wrote: post #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 d…

Who made Wikileaks about Assange himself? Certainly not Wikileaks?

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#17

Post by chc »

tptacek wrote: post #13
mindslight wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

When people say the New York Times does "journalism", one of the unspoken connotations of that is that they are paying actual highly-qualified people to travel across the world, often into war zones and scenes of chaos and disaster, to record and report events firsthand. It is awfully hard to even formulate an argument that the New York Times isn't a journalistic organization. On the other hand, it is not as difficul…

The bulk of what the Times does is not what you're describing here. For the most part, it just reprints what it hears from sources — just like WikiLeaks does — and the rest is even less newsy content like columns. By your definition, it seems like only a few pages of the Times are a journalistic organization and the rest is…well, whatever WikiLeaks is.

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#18

Post by damoncali »

bandushrew wrote: post #6
ars wrote: post #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 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…

Perhaps it is because the very concept of wikileaks is flawed from the start no matter your political persuasion. If it is successful, information will be out there. Powerful entities (including, but not limited to the US Government) can do one of at least things to counter that.

1) Drive actual secrets further underground and out of reach of wikileaks.

2) Use the leaks to spread disinformation/propaganda to their advantage.

3) Use violence, lies, and intimidation to help "shape" the form of the leaks.

It was doomed from the start. It was either a politically motivated propaganda machine, in which case it's fair game; or it was a lofty, academic pursuit, in which case it was a game.

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#19

Post by srl »

ars wrote: post #9
bandushrew wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

_Personally I think their leaks harmed things, and helped nothing._

I agree. At least, I think that's probably true - I haven't extensively researched it.

And yet, I nevertheless support wikileaks. News organizations aren't tasked with "helping things", they're tasked with "publishing things". And in the age of the social media pandemic, they're tasked with discovering and publishing things that couldn't be discovered and published by the masses - and a very large part (if not most) of that are things that governments do not want known.

Obviously, journalistic organizations have the responsibility not to publish things that will clearly lead to harm - for instance, military plans in a hostile country, missile launch codes, or names and addresses of anonymous dissenters in /any/ country. Past that, I only ask for the dissemination information.

Re: If WikiLeaks is dying, then the NYT is partly to blame

#20

Post by lukejduncan »

tptacek wrote: post #11
mathewi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argum…

What about the people among us who don't think that Wikileaks is a good thing to support? What if there are more people who think that than message board sentiment analysis would lead you to believe? What if the New York Times simply doesn't agree with your take --- ok, the popular take on places like HN --- about Wikileaks?

Does it matter if anyone thinks WikiLeaks is a "good" thing?

These are the questions that matter: Is WikiLeaks a journalistic entity? Why or why not? Is it OK for a bank/financial entity to block donations to any entity, journalism or not? *If money is speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) how is blocking donations not a criminal offence?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Post reply on HN