Shameful News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks To Get Shield Law
from the bad-precedent dept
A few weeks ago, we noted, with some disappointment, that the politicians who had been pushing for a much needed federal shield law for journalism, Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, were taking the politically expedient route of adding a specific amendment designed to keep Wikileaks out of the bill's protections. Apparently, a bunch of newspaper folks have stepped forward to support this move. Douglas Lee, at The First Amendment Center has an opinion piece calling those people out for sacrificing their overall principles just to get the shield law approved. The whole thing is a great read, but a few key snippets:It doesn't seem all that long ago that representatives of the newspaper industry would have recoiled from working with Congress to deny legal protection to anyone who leaked confidential or classified documents. Today, however, they seem happy to be doing so.Lee then goes on to quote various industry reps distancing themselves from Wikileaks and putting it down as "not journalism." He also quotes them admitting that they feel they have to throw Wikileaks under the bus, or the law won't get passed. He then calls them out on the impact of that decision, hinting at the fact that at least some of this might be due to traditional journalists simply not liking new upstarts that are changing the game -- like Wikileaks.
As comforting as it might be to "real" journalists to incorporate editorial oversight into a shield law and to use it to distinguish further between the "us" who are entitled to the law's protections and the "them" who are not, at least two dangers exist in that approach.It is the nature of politics today to compromise principles to get things through, but this move certainly seems unfortunate -- and one that I imagine many news organizations will regret down the road.
First, does anyone -- including the most mainstream of traditional journalists -- really think it a good idea that Congress and judges define, analyze and evaluate what is appropriate "editorial oversight"? For decades, news organizations have struggled to resist those efforts in libel cases and, so far, those struggles have succeeded. If those same organizations now invite legislators and judges into their newsrooms to see how worthy their reporters are of protection under a shield law, they shouldn't be surprised if the legislators and judges decide to stay.
Second, is the free flow of information really served if the act's protections are denied to those who don't have or practice editorial oversight? As Schumer acknowledged in his statement, the act already contains language that would limit or deny protection to those who provide or publish classified military secrets. Specifically exempting WikiLeaks and other organizations that might otherwise qualify for protection under the act in at least some cases seems designed not to enhance the free flow of information but to channel that information to mainstream sources.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, shield law
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The reality
Actually - as the Ponting case showed in the UK - the only thing that is needed is to make sure the final decision gets left to a jury. The jury in that case ignored the law and the judge - and did what was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reality
technology is great and all, but wikileaks real strength is that it isn't an american operation. it's based out of sweden and iceland, the latter is working on shield laws and other legislation to become a safe haven for controversial speech on the web:
http://immi.is/?l=en&p=vision
the american press industry can circle its wagons all it wants, but it won't have any effect on wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The reality
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=40476
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reality
um, how can they be irrelevant if someone relies on them and they successfully provide protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Best thing I've read all month!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm saving it for later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that Fox News is not journalism but are you implying that it is left wing? That's rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least some of understand that there are 2 bad sides. You are just an idiot wailing against one set of assholes whilst sucking the ass of a different set of the same assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are right, reporters tend to be left wing. But editors and owners are not. Guess who controls content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would be the chicken wing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everyone else, even moderates, look "left wing" to right wingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalists!! HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists!! HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope Wikileaks can survive the shitstorm and probably will, does it matter if the law doesn't give them protection no, would it be good to have it? yes.
The U.S. matter in this case? no.
Besides politics is about little gains, you don't try to get everything you want, you get one piece of the puzzle at a time. This is how things evolve on the political front and it is slow it can take decades to get everything in place, but it is good that places like Techdirt point out that the job will not be done when the law is passed if it is passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox is the closest thing to Journalists left
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox is the closest thing to Journalists left
"Two megolamaniacal retards get some people to show up where they are...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox is the closest thing to Journalists left
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox is the closest thing to Journalists left
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox is the closest thing to Journalists left
If that lot are the left then you're going to have to invent a whole new vocabulary for The Guardian and the BBC. (and then another one for The Morning Star).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox is the closest thing to Journalism left (WRONG! they only cover what you think is journalism)
They are sponsored outfits, that only cover stories that are convenient for the companies that own them, or buy ad-time on those networks.
Meanwhile in the rest of the world, most of us tend to listen to all sides before forming an opinion. And usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox is the closest thing to Journalists left
oh, whinge whinge
the anti-war rallies year after year have attracted hundreds of thousands. When did *any* of the mass media report on this at all? how was that reporting the news?
winkileaks? snore -- oh aren't you the clever one! LMAO -- at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks"
I incline to the view that Wikileaks is an intelligence op, and that it's being used for several goals at once.
1) Wikileaks is a secret organization with large but unknown funding.
2) The initial helicopter massacre video, and all following, are small dirty war details that don't undermine the very presence of US there.
3) Much of the document release suggests reasons for starting wider wars in Pakistan and Iran, rather than ending the wars.
4) Assange wouldn't be difficult to nab, yet he's making public appearances.
5) The "insurance" file: if they've anything and are legitimate, they'd better dump it before *all* wind up in a secret prison.
6) The alleged concern for informants and possibly working with the Pentagon to redact the documents. -- Er, insane. How does Wikileaks know who the informants are? And if they exist, are they really likely to be identified? And why this *possible* concern for traitors to their own country, in preference to the general populace which is *actually* and *daily* getting blown to bits by US forces? -- Adds up to overwhelming indication that an intelligence service is running Wikileaks, putting protecting informants first.
7) Now Wikileaks is being used to put across the notion of "legitimate" journalism, or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks"
1 is because the person who is giving the funding would be harassed by the government if they were made public.
2 does undermine the war and the presence of the United States.
4 is the most egregious here, because Assange has committed no crime and if he was 'nabbed', there would be a public outcry that might lead to Europe and other countries going to war with the United States.
5 I cannot comment on, because no one knows what is in the insurance file. As to the 'secret prison' thing.... BWAHAHAHAHA! If they even TRIED to touch this man, WAR WAR WAR, JUSTIFIED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES!
That is one time that the United States would get a SEVERE whooping from other countries around the world.
6 is bogus. "Redacting' shouldn't be done, even by the PENTAGON. The fact is that allowing our government to have ANY secrets for anything but an extremely SHORT (1 day) period of time allows some BAD SHIT to happen.
7 is bogus because Wikileaks IS legitimate journalism. The people who are saying they AREN'T are just pissed off that Wikileaks has exposed what a FARCE the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks"
Since Donaue was taken down during reign of Cheney - Bush was just a puppet - due lack of patriotism, the only credible person fighting for truth, and opposing the liberatrian "Free Market" - free market which has nothign free in it like the Free Market implementation in Argentina and Chile had proven. Yes. Those who are rallying for Free market were behind military coups of Argentina and Chile - and they have no will at all to spread democracy if they are not gaining money out of it.
And I agree, Wikileaks is Intelligence Operation, but most investigative reporting can be seen as Intelligence Operation. They share too many facets with each other. On the other hand, I think the investigative reporting reportin has disappeared in major braodcasters of USA. Docudrama has replaced Documents - and Docudramas are as factual as Reality TV is - "slightly" dramatized and edited reality.
Has everyone noticed how all news industries backing the current economic dogma has started to revision the language into something which resembles Orwellian 1984 New Speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why doesn't it surprise me that AP is a wikileaks
All of the "Steadfast" supporters are big media types
http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Help:Contents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are you talking about, their overall principles are profit and anything the govt can do to give them a competitive advantage they will support. Then they will turn around and claim to be free market capitalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is Wikileaks any different? In the last six months it has only done anti American establisment articles.
Wikileaks has not done a single article on Sweden, United Kingdom and Germany in the last 6 months. Could it be because their Editor in Chief has absolute Editorial power with no accountability and he happens to live in these countries (apart from Iceland?). Can we seriously believe that no one has leaked anything about such big countries in Europe?
We can sue NYT and a jury may rule in our favour. Try that with Wikileaks and you won't even know who worked on an article about something that went wrong in Belgium.
Gawker has set up a set where people can send in stories about what really happens within Wikileaks. Lets see what kind of info is made public about Wikileaks.
Keep our Government and mainstream media under scrutiny. And do the same for Assange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really?
"We can sue NYT and a jury may rule in our favour"
Why would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, I'd say "yes". Accusations without evidence make you look disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same with you
This is the problem. With Assange as God in chief, both of us can not be sure what was leaked and what was published
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same with you
My assertion and argument was that you didn't provide any evidence. So now you're asking me prove that you didn't? What are you, some kind of troll?I think it's pretty obvious from your post. If you'd like to point out where you actually did, then please do. Otherwise, you're just digging your hole deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And an extra point for the misspelled words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They merely distribute content that get leaked by whistle blowers.
And if the recent batch of leaks only show the bad side of the US government, then that's what's happening.
Who knows, next week, they'll report something damning on the German government. Or perhaps show the missing photos from Srebrenica from the time when the Dutch forces were there to keep the peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn Beck Organizes Rally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh someone is mad!
Hopefully the Judge presiding will realize it.. for what it really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are one of the ONLY organizations that are taking government to task for their rampant, unnecessary secrecy, which leads to NUMEROUS instances of the Armed Forces trying to hide massacres, killings of innocents, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the most amazing thing
People have ALL THE RIGHTS in the world to know what is being done with their money. Politics just treat them as rubbish.
Sorry for my english.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this article
"shouldn't be a shocker". well, depends on to whom. a country where you can call yourself a "christian" and run to the church every sunday in order to be elected, but then you have no logics shock if you allow lawyers to call a murder "juristically clean and legal" after letting the witnesses swear on a bible which usually - due to it's basic rules - forbids the witness to take part in a court case with a murder aim...
in such a country maybe "not a shocker" but believe us - pips who read this page from other parts if this world:
a) faint
b) fall down (carefully onto a couch)
c) get a heart attack
d) and need a few hours to return to work...
seriously, QUITE QUITE QUITE a shocker for normal pips. (i.e. thinking ones.) (those without cheese.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proofreading
It was proofread, actually, but mistakes get through. Normally, people point out what the typos/mistakes are so we can fix them.
We encourage that sort of thing. Simply saying that there are errors without pointing them out comes off making you look bad. Pointing out the actual errors would go a long way towards helping us fix them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wiky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't know much about them, do you?
First, they don't go out and "find" stuff. They publish stuff that is sent to them.
Second, of what is sent to them they only publish what meets their standards.
You could avoid looking so foolish by finding out what you're talking about *before* popping off about it.
ergo, not the same as journalists.
You mean like The National Enquirer, etc.? Or maybe like The New York Times, with writers that just make stuff up or parrot copyright industry talking points? Those journalists? Thank goodness Wikileaks seems more reliable than those "journalists" then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best comment I've seen on corporate journalists'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]