NY Times Creating Its Own Wikileaks?
from the catching-up dept
It's been funny watching critics of Wikileaks assume that if Julian Assange was somehow takendown, or that Wikileaks itself was somehow taken offline, that this concept of intermediaries to help publish leaked documents would somehow go away. In the past few months we've seen tons of new such operations spring up, and I'm sure some will start to find success (while others will fade away). However, what may be most interesting is that the mainstream press is finally waking up to the fact that they probably should have been doing this all along. The NY Times is apparently planning to create its own version of Wikileaks in the form of an "E-Z Pass lane for leakers." This idea of systems to help people leak info isn't going away. And, I'm curious if those who think that Wikileaks is criminally liable for "inducing" leaks, also think that the NY Times is similarly liable?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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Myself and others like E.J. Dionne agree in centrism.
NeoCon ideology is based in liberal ideology. Later in life, most liberals were driven to conservatism because they believed that liberalism failed.
NeoCons just want a hug. Do you need a hug? Find someone who was an asshole to you and give them a hug.
While Mike was visiting the Intel booth at CES, watching Will.I.Am, I was a row across at Monster Cables.
See?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only in America can it be patriotic to screw over people just so your party can be 'right'.
Glad someone agrees with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A lot of people like to be told what to think. They pick a party, and then rely on it to tell them what to think, because thinking for themselves is too hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I do not know how the American system works, if the newspaper actually gets subsidies from the State, I'm afraid the government might cut them, and put into danger the NY Times, which might have to either give out the idendities of the "leakers" or just outright stop this experiment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There exists somewhere out there a full series of television shows about how US television has taken the train to nutso town. I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow the BBC funded it, and..
Whoops, where did this come from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aEk864YrKw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though I'm actually not sure which is worse, this kind of frothing blatently biased rhetoric which shouldn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it and wants to shout "right on" at the TV a lot, or the more insidious "editorial slant" that does the same thing in the UK media. Unless of course it's just to me it's blatant and the target audience (presumably in the US) actually think it's just enthusiasm.
Either way you have to be impressed with the descriptive:
"DystopianFutureSciFiSatiricalShoutyPornSledghammerChannel Fox News"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that the Davos play thing?
Medvedev quote:
Source: CNN: Russia doesn't need 'lecturing,' Medvedev says at Davos forum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They didn't get anything big on us, they got big on everyone else, so hahaha, quit lecturing us about security and personal freedoms, jackwagons, and enjoy the roasting on Wikileaks."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the NYT or others are not careful, they could end up publishing lies, and put themselves in legal jeopardy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gasp and horror, a newspaper publishing lies and unsubstantiated rumours as if they were fact without proper background checking? That would be unprecedented!
/Sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the straw man building begin!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make you minds up already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's nothing that says a company can't do good things and also still do stupid things. There's nothing that says innovation (which the paywall idea could be considered a part of) has to be good ideas. The nuclear bomb was 'innovative', but I think it's safe to say it was a bad idea.
And if you read the article, you'll see that Mike is addressing the fact that mainstream media is doing something, NYT is just the first one to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So what was he looking at over there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously man, if you want to take what Mike writes about the ludicrousness of a pay-wall and stretch it all the way to "he thinks they should be put down", you have issues.
Just... wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]