Thoughts on the Reading: Wikileaks

The case study Friend or Foe? Wikileaks and the Guardian,published by the Knight Case Studies Initiative provides valuable insight into the way modern news is published. It looks at how British newspaper The Guardian came to team up with Julian Assange and other major newspapers to publish one of the biggest troves of confidential documents ever stolen from the U.S. government.

First of all, thank you to the producer of that article for helping me understand Wikileaks and its notorious founder, Julian Assange. Suspician, mystery, animosity, and admiration surround this international icon, but this article clears a lot of that away and helps me understand who he is and the way he operates Wikileaks. Understanding Wikileaks is crucial because they are on the cutting edge of citizen journalism, a new kind of source.

Wikileaks members--at least then--were a rich source, but not yet the communication platform they desired to be. Note that Assange was so glad to team up with members of the media establishment such as British newspaper The Guardian. According to the article, reporter Nick Davies said that Assange, "was aware that the Wiki model was a failure. He was already moving toward trying to use mainstream media to get more impact.” Apparently new web publishers sometimes need to lean on traditional media to gain credibility and exposure.

It is also interesting that neither no government attempted to prevent publication of the documents in question by official injunction. In the famous supreme court case New York Times vs. United States President Nixon had tried to restrain the publication of the Pentagon Papers, but failed.

Was the governmental passivity due to a feeling that the cables wouldn't do serious harm to international relations (not likely), or based on a fear that attempts to suppress publication by newspapers based in five different countries was akin to fighting a hydra? Perhaps another reason entirely.

The last element that I took away from this article that I want to mention has to do with the timeliness v. thoroughness conflict in modern journalism. The difference between scooping other news agencies or being last to the story and can be a matter of hours. Look at the story of how Joe Paterno's death was reported for example. But the newspaper consortium working with Wikileaks took months to sort out exactly what an when they were going to publish. They did rush, especially once they knew that Heather Brooke--and maybe others--had the diplomatic cables, but regardless, it seems that if your story is major enough it is worthwhile to take the time to make sure it's right rather than botch it in hurried publications.

The question remains about how major a story needs to be to merit painstaking delay of publication. For most events news consumers still seem to prefer early over thorough reporting. And perhaps The Guardian's situation was exceptional because they had such an exclusive scoop for so long.

I guess that takes me back to why Wikileaks is an important element of modern journalism. Like them or not, they've become a key figure in the struggle for information that characterizes journalism. Still,