NY Times Creating Its Own Wikileaks?

from the catching-up dept

Thu, Jan 27th 2011 1:14am — Mike Masnick

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

Filed Under: leaks, sources, wikileaks
Companies: ny times

30 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:53am

you'd wanna be careful that these aren't fake wikileak copies where the idea is to catch leakers "discretely" rather than protect them...who knows
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yogi, 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:58am

What's new?
Hasn't this basically been the function of the mainstream press for years - just to publish information that is purposely leaked to it by government officials? Isn't that "reporting".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MarksAngel (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:02am

Re: What's new?
Well it's suppose to be their function, somehow though I think it's gotten lost behind big money and pay offs...lol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:27am

What's neat about Wikileaks is if the rumors are true, they were probably leaked or at least filtered through neo-cons.

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 thread ]
Kurata, 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:46am

Though they might make their own Wikileaks, i'm actually afraid of hwo it'll work, considering it's an american newspaper.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:07am

I remember the time that people laughed about Wikileaks, I saw people write "that is a place for conspiracy nutts", that is all gone now, after the U.S. government freaked out, everybody take it seriously today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:08am

Re:
Exactly, Kurata.

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 thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:53am

Re: Re:
Whoops, where did this come from:
Haha hahahaha HA H... wait a second.... Actually that's pretty distubing.

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:
"DystopianFutureSciFiSatiricalShoutyPornSledghammerChanne�l Fox News"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:53am

Re:
IT has haunting mirrors to a Shakespearean play, and an awful novel series by J.K. Rowling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 4:02am

Re: Re:
I want the talking oven glove LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 4:11am

Re: Re:
???

Is that the Davos play thing?

Medvedev quote:

"At the end of the day, I believe that this WikiLeaks story should make the spirit of international relations healthier, even if in itself this is an illegal activity in the understanding of several states."

Source: CNN: Russia doesn't need 'lecturing,' Medvedev says at Davos forum
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 27 Jan 2011 @ 4:16am

Re: Re: Re:
I want the talking oven glove LoL
Something likeThis?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
princefeliz (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 4:34am

Re:
This is the way I see it. "If you can't beat your enemies, join them."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 5:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Approximate translation:

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 5:20am

As for the NYT, well, let's just say they do run some risks. Creating an outlet like this may encourage people to break the law to get them material, which is an issue. But I think the bigger risk is in the big fake leak, where someone concocts a series of documents that fall in line with things that have been already made public (dates, times, places, whatever) that tell a big fat line to make someone look bad.

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 thread ]
cc (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 5:27am

Ok, but will this be inside or outside the paywall? :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 6:22am

Re:
"If the NYT or others are not careful, they could end up publishing lies, and put themselves in legal jeopardy."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 6:31am

Re:
Liberalism this, conservatism that.... it's funny how you irrationally assume that a title alone removes all ability to be correct. People who talk like this can't even begin to discuss politics rationally because you're too terrified of being in the "wrong" camp above everything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 7:34am

This way the 'official media' will only disseminate 'official' leaks to the public that have been state approved first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 8:12am

Re: Re: Re:
I was more referring to the 'giving your enemy the tools to end you with.' And byt hat I mean destroy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 8:49am

Re:
Well, after they had GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS saying that the things that they had been saying and pointing out for years were right on the part of 'conspiracy nuts'..... they couldn't really keep saying that without getting a backhand to the face from the SMART Americans who hadn't been brainwashed with American exceptionalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 10:11am

"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"

Let the straw man building begin!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 10:18am

Re: Re:
I've been trying to publish a new saying and get it circulating:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 10:32am

What I find funny is that one day the NYT is the most clueless company in the world, the grand builders of walled gardens, and the next day they are innovative and on the cutting edge.

Make you minds up already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 10:53am

Re:
Well, you see, we look at the world as more than just black and white... well, most of us do, anyway.

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 thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:09am

Given the amount of bald-faced propaganda that the New York Times has published against Wikileaks (or more accurately, Julian Assange), I don't think I would trust the NYT with any sensitive material, or to protect the sources of said material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:40pm

Re: Re:
How would he know? He shouldn't be looking at the NYT is he believes in what he writes here, as the NYT is an evil walled garden building waste of an old media hag that should be taken out back and shot like an old horse that can't pull it's weight anymore.

So what was he looking at over there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 10:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
Well, putting word's into people's mouth doesn't work so well for you, is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 2:51am

Re: Re:
People who talk like this can't even begin to discuss politics rationally because you're too terrified of being in the "wrong" camp above everything else.

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 thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 5:57am

Re: Re: Re:
Do you feel emptier now that you've pulled something that big out of your ass? Relieved?

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 thread ]