Agence France Presse (9/28/10) has an interview with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales about WikiLeaks–apparently because of their proximity in alphabetical order. Wales says that he wishes WikiLeaks didn’t have “wiki” in its name–fair enough; he’s free to wish that. But he goes on to say:
In the most recent round of leaks, the New York Times…actually redacted certain information that could put people in harm’s way whereas WikiLeaks is planning to publish absolutely everything…. I think it is really important, when we have sensitive information, that we do rely on responsible journalists to sort through it for us…. It’s much better than dumping all kinds of crazy information online and get people killed…. I don’t think [WikiLeaks editor] Julian Assange wants those people killed, however if he irresponsibly follows the policy of releasing absolutely everything, it’s incredibly dangerous for those people.
There’s no indication in the piece that AFP tried to get a response from the group that its story is accusing of recklessly putting people’s lives in danger. Granted, WikiLeaks might be hard to get hold of these days. But two minutes of googling would turn up plenty of quotes like this one from Assange (Huffington Post, 8/14/10):
He said WikiLeaks was about halfway though a “line-by-line review” of the 15,000 documents and that “innocent parties who are under reasonable threat” would be redacted from the material.
Clearly, WikiLeaks does not have a “policy of releasing absolutely everything”–as a “responsible journalist” would have noted, rather than “dumping all kinds of crazy information online.”
Follow Jim Naureckas on Twitter @JNaureckas.
Unlike the New York Times, whose irresponsible publishing of leaked information via the conduit of Judith Miller and others resulted in the deaths of an estimated one million Iraqis. Are those the “responsible journalists” Jimmy Wales is referring to?
Bang on Eli, “responsible journalism” is a very poor choice of words to hide behind. I believe that in times like this when the vast majority of hard copy journalism is in the hands of so few, we must protect sites like Wikileaks and other independant journalists from the slur that gets put on them by those with vested interests (not saying that Mr Wales has, but he is it would seem “towing the line”)
WIkileaks has already released some material with names intact. Granted, they may also have redacted and they may also be redacting a lot of material, especially after the criticism they got for their earlier carelessness. But crossing out names is not always adequate to remove identifiers from people who may now be in harm’s way, through no fault of their own.
I’m not saying that we don’t have a need or a right to know what’s going on around the world, and what our money is being spent on. But putting translators and drivers and other local employees in the line of fire is not in anyone’s best interest. This doesn’t mean that wikileaks is terrible–nor did Wales say that it was terrible. He used a bit of hyperbole in saying that they under-redact. I figure that most of us are not happy when our names make it onto “enemies” lists–and most of us live in countries where there’s little-to-no firing squad activity and very few midnight disappearances, proportional to population. It is very easy to be ideologically pure in our circumstances, and also much easier to be innocently careless.
What’s a “responsible journalist”? I thought those people were urban legends?
> He used a bit of hyperbole in saying that they under-redact.
No – he simply regurgitated official propaganda. See Glen Greenwald on this matter.
BTW, it is interesting that despite being a co-founder of Wikipedia, Wales has an unmistakable elitist streak. His attitude on this issue is only to be expected.
Gotta love it.
Government-Intelligence-censored WikiPedia
pisses on
Government-Intelligence-tool WikiLeaks.
The family who controls our money also owns the Dissent. They control all the dissent “that’s fit to print” — to paraphrase the complicit NYTimes.
We Americans need to pull our heads out of the Media Circus tent, just as we’ve had to pull our heads out of the 2Party Circus tent.
All of it, including the endless analysis and criticism of it, is meant to keep us busy.
Take a break and read just one page, any page, of Eustace Mullins’ “Secrets of the Federal Reserve.” It’s free on the Internet, on web pages and by pdf file. It’s the news you’ll never get from major media nor from nearly all the supposedly independent media. Mullins died early this year. But his brave truth lives on.
” Mullins is a strident bigot who actually has two bodies of work. In one set of texts Mullins avoids overt antisemitic language while discussing his conspiracist theory of the Federal Reserve and the alleged role of forces tied to the Rothschild banking family. These texts involve implicit antisemitic stereotyping that is easily missed (sadly) by an average reader unaware of the history of conspiracist antisemitism and its use of coded language and references. In another set of texts Mullins displays grotesque antisemitism. Mullins uses his critique of the Federal Reserve to lure people toward his other works where his economic analysis is revealed to be based on naked hatred of Jews.”
–Dynamics of Bigotry, Political Research Associates
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/conspiracism-05.html
Thanks for pointing that out, Jim.
Good work Jim, the link was informative. Wm Grieder warns that if the Fed and the large banks aren’t put under control these entities could chronically be on the life line from our taxes to keep them afloat as Too Big To Fail becomes common place. Not a position any sober person (of any political stripe) would want. I know I didn’t like the bail out going to the criminal organizations first. They should have been last or never.
Wait, you’re saying the AFP reporter should have fact-checked Wales’s assertions instead of just repeating them verbatim? That’s crazy talk!
OK, a quick question? Is there any clear explanation of why I should be concerned about protecting the names of people? I am under the impression the documents are generated by the U.S. military and as such are just people reporting to their bosses. How is it in my interest to keep the names secret? Is it the in-country collaborators? A collaborator gets paid for their work and assumes the risks. Is it the people who are doing things that they are ashamed of in the military that are to be protected? Truly, there is no more shame left (have you seen Jack Ass?) Are we not picking a side in an absurd situation? How is it that protecting the collaborator’s and warmonger’s names any more important than the need to protect the people who are killed by them? I think (apparently as a member of the â┚¬Ã…“extreme leftâ┚¬Ã‚ or â┚¬Ã…“extreme rightâ┚¬Ã‚Â) that â┚¬Ã…“dumping all kinds of crazy information onlineâ┚¬Ã‚ is exactly what is needed. Not only do I have a right to know (as a taxpayer I am part owner of the documents and if some Australian who did not buy them can read them I should be able to also. As a voter I need that info so I chose which marketing team can put the happiest face on an empire.) but I am awful desperate for something interesting to read and Ayn Rand seems to have stopped writing all the sudden. If all I get is redacted battle reports that are months out of date I may as well read poems.