
Panama Papers Leak Signals a Shift in Mainstream Journalism - tysone
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/business/media/panama-papers-leak-signals-a-shift-in-mainstream-journalism.html
======
danso
I don't have many quibbles with the rest of the piece, but not sure what the
"shift in mainstream journalism" referred to in the headline is. That
journalists would break big stories using suspiciously obtained data and
documents? They've been doing that well before Snowden and Assange became
famous. What _would_ be a shift is if mainstream journalists _did_ go
Wikileaks-style and just dump everything online after they had reported on
it...but ICIJ hasn't done that in any of their previous leak
investigations...nor has any other mainstream organization done that with
leaked information (e.g. Guardian with the Snowden documents). However, you do
see a lot more news organizations putting up the data/documents that they
legally obtained for public inspection...a recent example that was on todays'
frontpage is BuzzFeed News's repos:

[https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews](https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews)

However, the "shift" that I _do_ see happening, that this article underplays,
is the cooperation of dozens of news organizations to independently and
securely investigate a big data/document dump, something made possible by
today's technology and cloud hosting systems, and agreeing to an embargo date.
This "distributed investigation" paradigm is very new in journalism, and I
hope to see a lot more of it.

~~~
thepangolino
>What would be a shift is if mainstream journalists did go Wikileaks-style and
just dump everything online after they had reported on it...but ICIJ hasn't
done that

This obsession for shielding the public from direct access to their source
material. The so called mass/mainstream media never seems to share links when
reporting about new laws being passed or new studies being published.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's not about shielding the public from access to their sources. It's about
shielding their sources from the public (or from any interest groups who might
wish to retaliate against the sources should they be named individuals).

Traditionally speaking, confidential sources were most often _people_ , and
not always documents. Or they were people passing along documents. These
people needed protection from those whose interests their leaks would disrupt.
And thus, a strict code of confidentiality is often considered to be part of
traditional journalistic ethics.

I'm not saying this is always upheld, everywhere. I'm not saying certain
unscrupulous publishers won't hide behind or twist this code to their personal
benefit. But the code exists, at least ostensibly, for a good reason.

~~~
r00fus
Furthermore, there's the issue that some of the data could represent a
compromise of a person or group's identity and/or financials.

Recklessly releasing data (according the mainstream media) could put (very
important) people at risk...

------
swalsh
The NYTimes was not "privileged" enough to have been a part of this new leak.
To me this is them displaying their sour grapes. I also don't believe it was
any accident they were not a part of the leaks. This is not the same paper
that published the Watergate burglary.

~~~
danso
The New York Times is quite literally not the paper that published the (main)
Watergate story...Watergate came from the Washington Post. Maybe you're
thinking of the Pentagon Papers?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States)

The NYT's public editor looked into the matter here:

[http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-
big-...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-
for-panama-papers/)

> _I talked Tuesday afternoon with Marina Walker, the deputy director of the
> International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who told me that her
> organization’s model – which she calls “radical sharing” – has not proved a
> good fit for every news organization. In previous projects, she said, ICIJ
> worked with, or tried to work with, other news organizations, including The
> Times, and “it wasn’t always a good fit.”_

> _Part of that, she said, is the idea of sharing all material, not keeping
> anything exclusive. Another part is agreeing to observe embargoes for when
> material would be published._

~~~
swalsh
You know, you're right... i completely messed that up. Though I think my
original intent of the post is right. It's a shame HN doesn't let me go back,
and edit my post to hide my shame :D

------
kobayashi
I'm unconvinced by the main argument of the article - that the Panama Papers
signal a shift (perhaps paradigmatic?) in mainstream journalism.

Yes, the PP leaks are different than Wikileaks, and yes, the ICIJ
reporting/investigation is different than most other cases of investigative
journalism, but one outlier doesn't a shift make.

Simultaneously, the article does bring up some thought-provoking points, like
the need by journalists to consider how they may be strategically used by
leakers of data for their own ends. But that's not really a new consideration
for journalists, either.

Granted, the article's author is unlikely to have titled the piece, so perhaps
the author would assert that the article wasn't trying to make the argument
defined by the title. Yet, all in all, I found the article to be sometimes
interesting but ultimately unpersuasive.

~~~
Fargren
I really hope the name "PP leaks" does not catch on.

~~~
kobayashi
lol, good point

------
sna1l
As an aside, I'm surprised tax code simplification isn't a bigger issue in
this current US presidential election. Apple and Google hold billions of
dollars outside of the US in order to pay lower taxes. I would have thought
more people would be looking for solutions to this common problem.

~~~
dietrichepp
I don't see how the money held outside the US is connected to tax code
simplification. If anything, taxing that money would make the tax code more
complicated, not less complicated.

~~~
devishard
It might be complicated to tax that money, but if we simplified tax code there
would be fewer complicated ways in which people can legally get the money
offshore in the first place. Tax simplification is a prevention, not a cure.

~~~
icebraining
It wouldn't help in the mentioned cases, though - the money was received
offshore in the first, it didn't "go" there.

~~~
lijason
Is that true? I'm not an accountant, but I thought a lot of companies do
things like give ownership of a technology to a foreign subsidiary and then
have their US operation "license" that technology at high cost to move profits
overseas as well. Maybe that loophole was closed though?

------
vnchr
Maybe rather than a shift, it's a divergence. The Panama Papers represent
classic journalistic values. It's what we want to expect: the truth uncovered.
It's been a stark contrast to see news outlets blatantly ignore the Panama
Papers, representing a very different set of values. Online discourse has
provided a means for a growing portion of the population to see the difference
and make their own choice.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
While the Panama Papers have been leaking away, the MSM have either made no
mention at all of the Unaoil bribery scandal, or have pushed it far away from
the front page.

It's quite hard to find these stories without a direct link:

[http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/09/tory-donor-
was-t...](http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/09/tory-donor-was-trusted-
middleman-for-oil-firm-involved-in-bribes-inquiry)

[http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/authorities-
monaco-raid-oil-firm-unaoil-hq-corruption-investigation)

Maybe those classic journalistic values believe that allegations of the
comprehensive corruption of the oil industry just isn't all that interesting
as a story.

------
InclinedPlane
The elephant in the room (for the past, I dunno, half century? century?
something like that) is that in the 20th century the news media transitioned
from being largely allied with the public at large and substantially working
class folks to being entirely a part of the "establishment" and being
dominated by elite, upper class perspectives. The media just does not do hard
hitting investigative journalism any more, as a rule.

~~~
icebraining
Really?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%8...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War)

I think they are just losing the veneer.

------
rorykoehler
This will be the most underwhelming leak unless the full leak database is
released. Otherwise it just stinks of a political power play. I would argue
that instead of signalling a shift in mainstream journalism it signals a shift
in cyber warfare tactics/strategy.

------
venomsnake
The greatest shift is the incredibly good opsec that the organizations and
journalists keep. It is a wonder.

~~~
chopin
Against us ordinary people, yes. Against nation-state attackers I am not so
sure. From which would you conclude that?

I am pretty underwhelmed by the disclosures so far. Aside from Cameron nobody
powerful in the western world has been hit. The majority in political power
are those opposed to US or EU interest.

~~~
venomsnake
Just wait. They are laying the trap now.

------
nbevans
It's annoying the media has not even focused on the cyberattack element in all
this. The theft and circulation of private legal data.

~~~
tajen
Protecting their source?

------
lunchTime42
We allready sold out to the advertisement industry, the military sector and
everyone with a double trigit bankaccount. So feed and caress us mighty
invisible hand, or we shall bite you, for we know all your secrets? Journalism
ala Mafia? That is the future? Can i have Wikileaks back please? I rather
prefer people not in it for the gains.

