Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

LOL it took them like 30 seconds to fire Shirley Sherrod just because of Andrew fucking Breitbart.

this was quickly reversed fyi

and the racism thing is something the WH is WAY more sensitive about in terms of media narrative, much bigger cause for worry for them than "Obama does not want to win the war in Afghanistan" which, again, is not something I have seen anyone anywhere argue.

yeah I mean I try to avoid saying "if you don't agree with me you aren't seeing things clearly," as strident as I can get, but I mean, it just seems extremely clear that the admin is very, very concerned with & reactive to the media spin on the choices they make, and I don't think it's really obsessive hateful anti-Obama-ism to think that the decisions they make have "how will this play out on TV?" very near the forefront of all their thinking.

I just think that yr hypothetical scenario for how it will play on TV is ridiculous

you're joking, right? have we forgotten the "no talks without preconditions" meme?

anyway i have no idea whether actual informants/civilians were named in this - if this is the case, that's a pretty grave fuckup and assange should own up to that. however it doesn't mean he was wrong to release all the other information and doesn't change the issue for me at all

you honestly don't think that if the admin had had any communication with a guy who wound up leaking sensitive documents, the spin would be "the white house: in on the spin"

okey dokey, that's "ridiculous," no-one can even imagine such a scenario, yr right

"White House Complicit In Release of Sensitive Data" - only on Mars could we imagine a headline like that following the White House answering mail from the founder of fucking WikiLeaks

Someone please define "war effort" for me. I see that phrase alot. In my most cynical moods, it basically means continuing this war so that sweet money keeps flowing to the military/industrial complex in the midst of a worldwide recession.

wikileaks volunteer detained at us border for 3 hours

so is this a big deal or just business as usual?

'war effort' sounds more manly and aggro than 'nation building'
wartime accounting is pretty heinous, but has there been any tracking of monies used for development projects under the pretext of war spending?

nothing mind-blowing but i think she and i are coming from the same place: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/09/100809taco_talk_davidson

So just to reboot the conversation over here; Can you really consider WikiLeaks a journalism institution? Isn't journalism more than acquiring documents and then releasing them into the public? Don't we expect some context (like a nutt graph at least), some expertise in the area (Assange doesn't have to know anything to accept anonymous documents and then repost them), and also a confirmation that the information is trustworthy? (Assange claims he has a technique to validate whether his information is true or not, but a) we don't know what it is while in journalism we know how relying upon sources works, and b) it's not just about what information is true but also who stands to gain from a particular bit of information, journalistic expertise is not just knowing that something is true, it's knowing why it matters and why the source benefits from it.) In general, it's this last thing that puts me in favor of a bill to protect journalists from subpoenas. Tho there has been a huge increase of using anonymous sources unnecessarily (Shafer has been really good on this beat), any time you use an anonymous source you are entering a relationship with an editor and your journalist institution about that source. A good editor makes sure it's necessary, and makes sure that you aren't just manufacturing sources yourself (and that you've thought through why a particular source needs to remain anonymous). I know this to be true because when I've had to deal with anonymous sources in investigative pieces I've had to have long conversations with editors about why/and to what extent we can use that information. These are all important hallmarks of journalism to me, and things that Assange does not qualify for.

Question: If Assange is a journalist and WikiLeaks is journalism, then what exactly is journalism?

i dunno if that matters. cynical face on: journalism is corrupt as fuck anyway, in hock to corporate interests blah blah blah. wikileaks happened, and saying it isn'y journalism won't stop the fact that 'in the web 2.o era' leaking s going to be a part of lyfe.

so is that an opinion or should I judge your intentions?

insurance

i dunno if that matters. cynical face on: journalism is corrupt as fuck anyway, in hock to corporate interests blah blah blah. wikileaks happened, and saying it isn'y journalism won't stop the fact that 'in the web 2.o era' leaking s going to be a part of lyfe.

I'm actually kinda skeptical of this claim. It assumes that there's an infinite supply of leaks and just a lack of locations for those leaks to play out. Leaks will still require people to leak information and those people are rare and arguably the real force behind leaks coming out -- not Web 2.0 websites giving them an opportunity to give out the information. Yes, it could mean that people will be more willing to leak information, but that's arguably because of the radical anonymity, not because it's a transnational server. The bill currently under consideration could also increase leaks since people will feel safer bringing information to traditional media venues. Essentially, I have a hard time hearing the case for why Web 2.0 is going to introduce some radical new form of transparency. It's still a tool, and it'll require people to use it. Maybe people like Pfc. Bradley Manning will be more likely to leak information but a) I'm not convinced he has leaked anything that would indicate that WikiLeaks has "changed the game," and b) people who have the kind of information that leaks facilitate best will continue to use traditional media and not just release tons of documents online.

Leaks will still require people to leak information

this isn't as necessarily true as it used to be! its hard to secure information in "the digital age." especially personal-type information.

Maybe, but WikiLeaks as it currently exists is only a location for people to leak information to.

whats your point

I'm actually kinda skeptical of this claim.

^^ That was basically my point?

Like I've read this (which seems to be the big argument for why WikiLeaks is changing the game): http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html

If you go to the Wikileaks Twitter profile, next to “location” it says: Everywhere. Which is one of the most striking things about it: the world’s first stateless news organization. I can’t think of any prior examples of that. (Dave Winer in the comments: “The blogosphere is a stateless news organization.”) Wikileaks is organized so that if the crackdown comes in one country, the servers can be switched on in another. This is meant to put it beyond the reach of any government or legal system. That’s what so odd about the White House crying, “They didn’t even contact us!”

Appealing to national traditions of fair play in the conduct of news reporting misunderstands what Wikileaks is about: the release of information without regard for national interest. In media history up to now, the press is free to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the laws of a given nation protect it. But Wikileaks is able to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the logic of the Internet permits it. This is new. Just as the Internet has no terrestrial address or central office, neither does Wikileaks.

But I'm not clear on the innovation here. It's a paradigm change because a State can't crack down on it if it reports something the State doesn't like? Newspapers often report on things that the State doesn't like. "Because the laws of a given nation protect it," versus "because the logic of the Internet permits it" is an interesting distinction with possible consequences, but it's not like suddenly you can deliver information that you previously couldn't deliver. Is there an example of someone with a leak who actually couldn't get a hearing on the information because the State wouldn't let newspapers report it? There are examples of newspapers holding back on information, or only delivering some of the information -- but WikiLeaks is doing that too! (They still have 15,000 documents they haven't released.) You essentially have to believe that there is a lot of leakable information that the NYT or WaPost refuses to touch that can now go up on WikiLeaks -- except that we haven't seen any leaks like that. Manning couldn't have leaked the "Collateral Murder" to the NYT or NPR or Village Voice Media or the many journalistic upstarts that are dying for a huge scoop? So yes, there's def a change in how these things work, but I haven't seen the case for what that difference actually means to journalism. (Especially since when WikiLeaks decided to leak 90,000 documents who'd they go to to report the information? The NYT, Der Spiegel + the Guardian.)

Is there an example of someone with a leak who actually couldn't get a hearing on the information because the State wouldn't let newspapers report it?

In my opinion, that isn't the relevant point.

There are examples of newspapers holding back on information, or only delivering some of the information

THAT is the point.

But WikiLeaks is doing the same thing -- so I don't see how this is such a huge shift. As long as there's a human being involved willing to take responsibility for the information that is reported there will be things held back.

I think the difference is that traditional newsgathering and news-delivering sources, left and right, hold things back because at the end of the day they're susceptible to economic pressures and political pressures. Those reasons shouldn't enter into any editorial decision. WL will have us believe they're not susceptible to business or political influence, which may or may not be true, but it's a nice idea. There are legit reasons not to release everything they get, like their leaks might put innocents in harm's way. They're already running into that thornbush.

WL will have us believe they're not susceptible to business or political influence, which may or may not be true, but it's a nice idea.

That's the claim I'm really skeptical of. It could be that WL will be subject to new or different economic or political influences than the mainstream US media, but I don't see how they emancipate themselves from economics + politics.

sometimes it takes a few minutes to see the wires in a puppet show

mordy it's rather simple: the government shouldn't get to decide what journalism is. you don't have to include assange and wikileaks in your club if you don't want to, but non-traditional media should still be entitled to the same free press protections that traditional media are afforded, which means the right to protect their sources upon subpoena

I don't think you've thought that position through, k3v. Can anyone just declare themselves a journalist and then be free of being subpoenaed?

I don't think you've thought that position through, k3v. Can anyone just declare themselves a journalist and then be free of being subpoenaed?

It depends. What do they do that they are defining as journalism? If it's delivering flowers, no. If it involves the dissemination of information via print, television, radio, or other electronic means, maybe.

I'm willing to be swayed on this, but I think the reason that we distinguish between journalism and someone who simply disseminates information is because of messy stuff like the public interest. Lots of people could disseminate information via print, television, radio, etc that we might like to subpoena. Arguably under that definition Bradley Manning is a journalist. Maybe you happen to like what Bradley Manning leaked but it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to think of someone disseminating information to print, television, radio etc that you may want to be subpoena'd. Journalism is, for better or worse (imo for better) an actual institution. Just like doctors have special legal protections that not everyone gets (even if you consider yourself like a doctor but aren't actually), so too should journalists.

Just like doctors have special legal protections that not everyone gets (even if you consider yourself like a doctor but aren't actually), so too should journalists.

Doctors get this through licensure via accredited institutions - there are all manner of legal requirements in place about it, and this is because they provide direct care (and consequently can do direct harm). The notion of making journalism a licensed & accredited profession, while admittedly interesting, is a nonstarter, because any harm occurring because of a reported story is the sole responsibility of the person doing the harm. Seems like black letter law to me: I am not responsible for the actions of others.

(On second thought Manning is a bad example because this would really only protect sources and presumably he doesn't have his own source -- but I think the point still stands. Is a journalist anyone who takes information and then repackages it for the public? I can think of a lot of examples where I'd want such a figure subpoenaed. Hell, I think Assange should be subpoenaed re: the leaks since someone released information that put people's lives at risk.)

Like here's a disembodied moral question. If I leak information that leads to someone dying, am I culpable in any way for that death? (If I tell a murderer where he can find his victim, presumably I have culpability.) Generally the journalism institution is in place to mediate those risks such that they can minimize those risks. Even still tho, people's lives are put at risk through leaks (see Plame Affair). Now with a journalism institute, you may decide you want to say, "Ok, I understand some people may not be brought to justice but I believe the press is worth protecting here especially since they'll try to minimize damage." But how about with something like WikiLeaks? Should we really give them carte blanche to publish anything and protect their sources who may be acting out of any number of motives that we might want to prosecute?

Which goes to a question we haven't discussed here yet, which is that radical anonymity is actually contra a free press -- it allows all kinds of interests to use that press to whatever ends they want. One thing journalism is supposed to do is mediate those abuses, give anonymity when they feel it deserves it, etc. But Assange is saying, "No, everyone can be anonymous." The philosophy seems to be that if anything can go in, no one can take advantage. But it's just as easy to say that if anything can go in, everyone can take advantage.

and this is because they provide direct care (and consequently can do direct harm). The notion of making journalism a licensed & accredited profession, while admittedly interesting, is a nonstarter, because any harm occurring because of a reported story is the sole responsibility of the person doing the harm. Seems like black letter law to me: I am not responsible for the actions of others.

I assume I don't need to point out the fallacy here, right?

Like here's a disembodied moral question. If I leak information that leads to someone dying, am I culpable in any way for that death? (If I tell a murderer where he can find his victim, presumably I have culpability.)

you see the HUGE, GAPING difference between these two scenarios, right? (ignoring the fact that you said 'leak' and not 'report',) if someone disseminates information that leads to someone's death, that is a very unfortunate thing, and that person should probably feel shitty about themselves for that. that does not mean he should be held legally accountable; that's the thing about freedom of the press - the government doesn't get to retroactively prosecute someone for exercising his right, even if it indirectly led to someone's death. same way you can't censor books or other speech that the govt thinks may lead to unfortunate public interest consequences. in some warped way it may be safer if rights are taken away, but who wants to live in that kind of society? (i'm not sure what you were going for with the whole moral vs legal binary though - if i say something racist, i should feel like an asshole and deserve to be socially ostracized, but should i be prosecuted for "deliberately injuring another person's dignity", like in south africa? maybe i'm going off on a tangent here)

the second scenario is different - assuming you weren't under duress and told the murderer where the person was, knowing it would lead to murder, you're just an accomplice

if someone disseminates information that leads to someone's death, that is a very unfortunate thing, and that person should probably feel shitty about themselves for that. that does not mean he should be held legally accountable;

This is an ethically really reprehensible position imo. People should be legally accountable for actions that lead to people dying.

Ie: Your right to freely disseminate information does not trump someone else's right to life.

i mean you also can't assassinate some asshole halfway across the world for advocating the overthrow of the government OH WAIT

I guess you're claiming that you're entitled to reprehensible ethics because the government does things you don't approve of?

Ie: Your right to freely disseminate information does not trump someone else's right to life.

― Mordy, Thursday, August 5, 2010 11:15 PM (12 seconds ago)

well that's not my position at all, shocker - the way you say it makes it sound like the information was made available for the expressed purpose of this person dying, or provided directly to the people who carried out this hypothetical murder. what i'm talking about is information or speech being expressed and, independently, bad event x happens.

i mean what if a newspaper (or a book) ran an article that detailed how to commit a murder without leaving any trace, and then someone later committed a murder in exactly this fashion? can the government prosecute the journalist or the author of that book for proferring information that likely led to someone dying?

xp well sort of, actually! i'm legally entitled to whatever speech i like, regardless of how it jibes with mordy's ethics. there's a world of difference between condoning behavior and being opposed to the criminalization of the same behavior

well that's not my position at all, shocker - the way you say it makes it sound like the information was made available for the expressed purpose of this person dying, or provided directly to the people who carried out this hypothetical murder. what i'm talking about is information or speech being expressed and, independently, bad event x happens.

This is really confusing. Is there a case where someone could publish information irresponsibly enough that you'd consider them culpable for someone's death? Say, information that they knew beforehand could lead to a death and then it actually lead to the death? Because you're outlining a case of unintentionally as a way of -- it appears -- eliding the actual issue.

Unintentionality - or something like that. Motiveless publishing. But like, let's say Plame's cover had been blown and she'd actually died (which was a serious concern during the Plame Affair), and let's say it turned out that Novak was well aware of this risk when he published it. You really wouldn't feel he's legally culpable?

i'm guessing here the legal distinction between being an accomplice ("plame is here, go kill her") and just being a motiveless reporter, is that everyone (the public) gets the news at the same time? if i furnish you and you alone with a list of ppl in the witness protection program, then it would not be a stretch to say i'm complicit. if i publish one in the newspaper, then theoretically the protecting agency and any would-be killers are operating with the same set of facts.

otoh, what's tricky with say an afghani informant is that it could be entirely possible that they would be completely ignorant of a WL document naming them, whereas a well-connected organization that's pissed off is likely in tune with this stuff

nb i do not know this to be true, i'm trying to think thru it

mordy it seems worth pointing out that "institution of journalism" youre talking about is just one version of "journalism"--one thats only existed for 60 or 70 years or so and seems primed for some really major changes

I'm definitely interested in talking about the history of the Press, tho maybe not in this thread. But I'd make a much stronger historical reading of Press going back to the 1400s in some kind of printed reportorial form (newspapers, really) that carries with it all those years of ethics and governmental/state/power relationships. Like the idea of it acting as a fourth estate goes back to at least the 18th century.

Which goes to a question we haven't discussed here yet, which is that radical anonymity is actually contra a free press -- it allows all kinds of interests to use that press to whatever ends they want

ok its just when you say things like this its like... im not sure what the alternative is? isnt this always the way "the press" has existed? as tool used by various interests?

Yes, but reporters are conscious and aware of those various interests. That's supposed to be part of their job, analyzing sources and contextualizing their trust-worthiness, value, balance, etc. Assange has no idea who sends him what. It's totally anonymous to him.

see i think thats only really been "the job" of reporters since the 1930s or 40s