

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review - tptacek
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/06/wikileaks_review.html

======
jrockway
The question that the title brings up, but the article fails to answer until
the very end, is whose "due diligence" review Wikileaks failed. Well, here it
is:

 _the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation considered and rejected an
application from WikiLeaks for financial support_

So that's the foundation of the article. An exciting and technically true
"fact", a bunch of ranting about why the author doesn't like Wikileaks, and
finally the source of the "fact" that the article is based on. Good whining,
poor reading. Yawn.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
The author also points out that WikiLeaks has published things that are not in
the public interest to publish (e.g. the sorority ceremony), not theirs to
publish (e.g. the copyrighted book), or that, the article argues, could have
been handled much more effectively (the killcam video).

I admit that the last point is not argued very persuasively, but there _is_
more content in the article.

------
fgf
The following paragraph is incredibly stupid. The telling comparison tells
nothing at all; the impact of abu graihb pictures vs. american-gunship-
massacre-video was not controlled by those who released them.

"A telling comparison can be made between WikiLeaks’ publication of the Iraq
Apache helicopter attack video last April and The New Yorker’s publication of
the Abu Ghraib abuse photographs in an article by Seymour Hersh in May 2004.
Both disclosures involved extremely graphic and disturbing images. Both
involved unreleased or classified government records. And both generated a
public sensation. But there the similarity ends. The Abu Ghraib photos
prompted lawsuits, congressional hearings, courts martial, prison sentences,
declassification initiatives, and at least indirectly a revision of U.S.
policy on torture and interrogation. By contrast, the WikiLeaks video
tendentiously packaged under the title “Collateral Murder” produced none of
that– no investigation (other than a leak investigation), no congressional
hearings, no lawsuits, no tightening of the rules of engagement. Just a mild
scolding from the Secretary of Defense, and an avalanche of publicity for
WikiLeaks"

------
theDoug
I'm fairly sure those behind Wikileaks are as concerned about their opinion in
the eyes of the press as much as we'd still care what an elementary school
teacher thinks about our penmanship.

Apart from using Knight as a possible funding source, I assume the whole
purpose of the Wikileaks project is to move beyond the realm of requiring a
handful of national newspapers and a few wire services to give the news to
local outlets too lazy (or poor) to do their own investigations.

~~~
eli
I couldn't disagree more. Those behind wikileaks are obviously very concerned
about how they appear to others. Did you read the New Yorker profile of Julian
Assange a few weeks back?

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all)

Wikileaks is an interesting and (I think) mostly beneficial presence in the
world. But it's activism _not_ journalism.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_But it's activism not journalism._

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here. If the
journalism industry did its job properly, there would be no reason for
Wikileaks to exist; they would (literally) have nothing to add to the
conversation. But journalists are not doing their jobs properly, and so there
are opportunities for Wikileaks to contribute to the public discourse.
Wikileaks does some journalism. They might be doing activism at the same time,
but that does not mean they're not also engaged in journalism.

I think Greg Sargent's perspective on the "partisan" versus "objective"
journalists might be relevant here: [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-
line/2010/06/a_little_...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-
line/2010/06/a_little_message_to_jeffrey_go.html)

~~~
ErrantX
> If the journalism industry did its job properly, there would be no reason
> for Wikileaks to exist;

Not true. Journalists still have to work within the laws of their country (and
possibly, if they want to travel, the laws of others too).

Entities like Wikileaks will always be able to push the boundaries further.

(that's not to say the journalism industry isn't pretty hopeless)

I think Wikileaks does both journalism and activism; nowadays probably more of
the latter than the former.

~~~
bluedanieru
You have a point, but not all the failures of contemporary journalism are due
to strict laws, or some such. Nothing coming out of anything owned by News
Corp. falls into that category, for example.

~~~
ErrantX
Oh absolutely (which is sort of what I meant with: _that's not to say the
journalism industry isn't pretty hopeless_ ).

Journalism is getting worse (in general anyway) and more "trashy". Sadly that
is probably less driven by constriction of press freedom (or whatever) as it
is by the populace hankering after worthless trash :(

------
desigooner
an incorrect/incomplete assumption will almost always lead to an
incorrect/incomplete conclusion. The premise of the entire post is the fact
that Knight Foundation rejected Wikileaks' request for funding. Now, unless
the reasons have been made public, writing such a piece that is one-sided and
highly opinionated.

Now, what wikileaks does can be up for debate but a debate based on facts
nonetheless. The comparison between the 2007 video and the abu ghraib lawsuits
is incoherent at best. There has been enough uproar and reactions upon the
public release of the video. As long as Wikileaks doesn't hinder any
undergoing investigation by busting the dam a bit too early, i believe the
idea does work towards greater good and opens channels of information that
would have been hushed up.

------
steveklabnik
Hm. Complaining when a site that is designed to release information...
releases information?

