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

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

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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 10:50am

    'cause the NYT is clearly trolling for a response.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:08am

    Not really the same thing, is it? Perhaps companies can stop sponsoring TD for supporting piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:12am

    Re:

    Perhaps Government Welfare can stop supporting you for Murdering a Young girl in 1998.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re:

    But who's going to pay for my medication?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What's the difference? You know we don't use it anyway!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), Dec 22nd, 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).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Dec 22nd, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure if it was intentional, but this is hilarious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re:

    what's different?

    this can actually get people killed.

    nobody gets killed from the wikileaks stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Doug, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Perhaps Wikileaks hasn't sacrificed enough trees to achieve an aura of irreproachable institution?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 12:01pm

    That'll be a cold day in hell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 12:24pm

    Re:

    How is it not really the same thing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re:

    Easy, the difference is Wikileaks embarrassed individuals and not the government in general.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 12:53pm

    I do not recall the NYT ever having established a website encouraging people to disclose to it classified information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 1:02pm

    Re:

    No...the have an established ORGANIZATION that encourages people to disclose classified information.

    Apparently "website" makes everything different?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    J.J. (profile), Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    J.J. (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 1:14pm

    Re:

    That is, and has ALWAYS been the purpouse of the free press.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    Have an original idea yet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What does that have to do with it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Benny6Toes (profile), Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    LTs, Dec 22nd, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 1:31pm

    Re:

    Yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Jason, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (profile), Dec 22nd, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 2:02pm

    Re:

    Really? It's called www.nytimes.com. You should check it out sometime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    molecule (profile), Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 3:39pm

    Re: Re: cc came closest

    Nor has wikileaks released 250k documents, troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    FMHilton, Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (profile), Dec 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), Dec 23rd, 2010 @ 4:34am

    Re: Re:

    I own the patent on original ideas. Pay me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Dayne, Dec 24th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    jarfil, Dec 24th, 2010 @ 8:45pm

    It's, not about revealing secrets, but revealing them FOR FREE. Selling secrets you can mostly get away with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    DanDare, Dec 29th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This