Will Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, BofA & Apple Terminate Relationships With The NYTimes For Revealing Military Secrets?

from the consistency-is-all-i-ask dept

Wed, Dec 22nd 2010 10:59am — Mike Masnick

Glenn Greenwald has a post highlighting how a NY Times' investigative report on US military action in Pakistan appears to reveal key military secrets concerning plans that have not yet been put in place, and which could certainly put Americans and others in danger:

Indeed, the NYT reporters several times acknowledge that public awareness of these operations could trigger serious harm ("inside Pakistan, [] the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash"). Note, too, that Mazzetti and Filkins did not acquire these government secrets by just passively sitting around and having them delivered out of the blue. To the contrary: they interviewed multiple officials both in Washington and in Afghanistan, offered several of them anonymity to induce them to reveal secrets, and even provoked officials to provide detailed accounts of past secret actions in Pakistan, including CIA-directed attacks by Afghans inside that country.

As he notes, all of this seems a lot more revealing than anything that Wikileaks has done, and a lot more likely to put people in danger. Yet, there's been almost no response, and certainly nothing like the attention paid to Wikileaks -- with calls for trials or even killing the head of Wikileaks. Seems odd, doesn't it?

But, an even bigger point is buried towards the end in an update, where Greenwald asks:

Why aren't Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, their web hosting company and various banks terminating their relationships with The New York Times, the way they all did with WikiLeaks: not only for the NYT's publication of many of the same diplomatic and war cables published by WikiLeaks, but also for this much more serious leak today in which WikiLeaks was completely uninvolved?

And, I think, we can add Apple to that list. After all, if these companies keep claiming that Wikileaks "broke the law" (as most of the companies listed here are saying), why do they not feel the same way about the NY Times?

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: hypocrisy, journalism, state secrets, wikileaks
Companies: apple, mastercard, ny times, paypal, visa

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 10:50am

'cause the NYT is clearly trolling for a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:08am

Not really the same thing, is it? Perhaps companies can stop sponsoring TD for supporting piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps Government Welfare can stop supporting you for Murdering a Young girl in 1998.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    But who's going to pay for my medication?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What's the difference? You know we don't use it anyway!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - cc (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not sure if it was intentional, but this is hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  what's different?
  
  this can actually get people killed.
  
  nobody gets killed from the wikileaks stuff.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  How is it not really the same thing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Easy, the difference is Wikileaks embarrassed individuals and not the government in general.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What does that have to do with it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:14am

I'm sure the argument will be akin to the google vs. torrent site search engines, i.e. "infringing" leaks on google are a minor part of google and in no way contribute to their overall bottom line in any meaningful way, vs. the torrent search engines that rely 100% on "infringing" content to further their livelihood.

So Wikileaks is 100% evil because their only existence is to release "illegal" content, vs. the NY times that only sometimes does it, and then when it does, has a really good reason.

Whatever let's them sleep better at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J.J. (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re:
  Except Wikileaks have been active for years and has previously leaked stuff on various African countries and Swiss banks ... but oh ... it wasnt a problem then was it ?, i mean, free speech is great as long as you agree with what is being said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:18am

Do we even need to ask? News Corp has made millions in campaign contributions, while Wikileaks hasn't. Also, Wikileaks is one of them new-fangled internet things, while The NY Times is a respected media organisation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LTs, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: NYT is respected?
  Thats stretching the truth a bit. When has NYT been respected in the past 30-60 years? HAHA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:19am

Because the NYT is American, Wikileaks is not. They already "control" the media, so it's much easier to spin a NYT article than wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:23am

Answer is obvious, of course
C'mon, the title of this post is essentially a rhetorical question. Financial organizations like Mastercard et al know that jettisoning wikileaks will cost them essentially nothing while not doing so threatens them with onerous regulation (the same issue affects their relationship with porn and gambling organizations, despite the revenues). Apple doesn't have the same set of regulators, but still has lots of opportunity for regulatory harassment (and has a desire/need to curry regulatory favor).

Cutting of the NYT wouldn't garner the same kind of value (since they are seen as "legitimate journalism", and have a clear precedent with the Pentagon Papers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:27am

Interesting (and relevant) juxtaposition on Reuters:
Apple bans the Wikileaks apps, while Google knowingly keeps them. Makes me wonder if Google is serious about not liking censorship, after all...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN228216820101222
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:28am

"Wikileaks -- with calls for trials or even killing the head of Wikileaks."

"Assasinate the head of the NY Times !!!!" ... LOL ... I would pay to see a senator say that and watch the response from every news organization on the planet. But because WikiLeaks is percieved to be a small organization with no real reporting foot print and up until recently believed to have a small following.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug, 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:39am

My guess: 1) the people who make decisions at those companies probably haven't thought much about it yet since it only happened the day before yesterday, and 2) terminating their relationship with WikiLeaks probably costs them little or nothing, whereas the NYT is a valuable advertising platform.

There's no such thing as business ethics. There's only business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:59am

Perhaps Wikileaks hasn't sacrificed enough trees to achieve an aura of irreproachable institution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  Look at how many trees we've killed here, and we can't even get a single Uruk-hai. Nothing but trolls, trolls, trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 12:01pm

That'll be a cold day in hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 12:35pm

After all, if these companies keep claiming that Wikileaks "broke the law" (as most of the companies listed here are saying), why do they not feel the same way about the NY Times?

They don't feel that way about Wikileaks either; they just don't want the government breathing down their necks. When push comes to shove, "good corporate citizens" toe the line.
The real question is, why aren't Lieberman & co. jumping on this? I suppose the answer is that none of their own personal secrets were revealed in this particular case.
I still wonder what exactly Lieberman is afraid of in Wikileaks' cables... Based on his sheer vehemence you'd think they had proof he had an entire harem of secret gay lovers and was running multiple drug smuggling rings or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 12:53pm

I do not recall the NYT ever having established a website encouraging people to disclose to it classified information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re:
  No...the have an established ORGANIZATION that encourages people to disclose classified information.
  
  Apparently "website" makes everything different?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J.J. (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  That is, and has ALWAYS been the purpouse of the free press.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps not, but as was pointed out in this post, the NYT reporters actively sought out and encouraged government officials to leak information to them. That makes their role on par with, if not greater than, that of Wikileaks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  Really? It's called www.nytimes.com. You should check it out sometime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:17pm

Have an original idea yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - martyburns (profile), 23 Dec 2010 @ 4:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    I own the patent on original ideas. Pay me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benny6Toes (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:22pm

cc came closest
it's about perspective (and fear), and i think it comes down to the definition of the word, "journalist" (or "news organization" if you prefer).

many of the opponents of Wikileaks (politicians, pundits, etc) have repeatedly said that Wikileaks isn't a news organization and Assange isn't a journalist. why he, specifically, needs to be a journalist escapes me (the head of the NYT doesn't need to be), but their belief that Wikileaks isn't journalism allows them to spout off about it without (much) fear of reprisal. additionally it provides cover to corporations that distance themselves from Wikileaks.

by contrast, the NYT is a well established new organization and is therefor protected by the 1st Amendment. making similar threats and claims against the Times would earn all of the opponents a public lashing. they can get away with saying that the Times is being reckless or should be more thoughtful, but any criticisms more severe would make the Times a victim. it would be a political disaster. Assange and Wikileaks do not enjoy the same protections (both 1st Amendment and political) as the Times, so that's why they're being attacked int he way they are.

aside from the fear thing (cowards), i think it comes down to a lack of understanding about how the very nature of journalism is changing; and citizen journalism in particular. of course, i think that misunderstanding is based in fear as well, but perhaps that's a different discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re: cc came closest
  NYT didn't print 250,000 documents or offer to distribute them for free.
  
  They wrote a story based on a single document, and worked to obtain supporting evidence.
  
  NYT is a newpaper, and the people who work their are journalists.
  
  Wikileaks is a file dump and the people who work there are not journalists. They are programmers, webmasters, and so on.
  
  How hard is it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re: cc came closest
    Wrong, Mr. Assange is not a journalist but other involved are, and they act exactly like Reuters that is a dump site for stories or the AP, this means those entities are not journalistic too?
    
    About the hardness are you working for the TSA?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re: cc came closest
    So basically the NYT creates "creative works" derived from the facts of the matter, while Wikileaks is the raw, undiluted facts themselves.
    
    Straightforward enough distinction. But what does it matter?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - molecule (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 3:39pm
    
    Re: Re: cc came closest
    Nor has wikileaks released 250k documents, troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FMHilton, 22 Dec 2010 @ 6:59pm

It's business
The reason these companies do not attack the NY Times is that they have established long-term business relationships not only with the Times, but many of the companies that also do business with the paper.
If they blacklist or "go after" the Times in any way possible, they're at risk of really screwing up a huge amount of business and money.
You don't bite the hand that feeds you. The Times has clout enough to make any company think twice before crapping all over them in public.
You want to stay in business, you play nice with the "paper of record" for the United States. Otherwise, you go out of business in 30 days or less.
Wikileaks isn't a business. They're just a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 7:26pm
  
  Re: It's business
  The last two sentences are rather unnecessary and irrelevant to the rest of your post. It is indeed just business. But it doesn't matter that Wikileaks isn't a business, it matters that Wikileaks doesn't have the economic and political power that the Times has to directly take retribution on any businesses to take action against it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DanDare, 29 Dec 2010 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: It's business
  So the NYT has the clout to pressure these companies to get back to acting as financial carriers and pass on funds meant for wikileaks, yes? The NYT has good reason to stand on wikileaks side in this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dayne, 24 Dec 2010 @ 11:24am

Indeed. Don't forget Apple removed the Wikileaks app from their store, so perhaps they will do the same for NYTimes.

If not, then Steve better stop giving in to government pressure, and cut Julian some slack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jarfil, 24 Dec 2010 @ 8:45pm

It's, not about revealing secrets, but revealing them FOR FREE. Selling secrets you can mostly get away with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]