Imagine If The NY Times Had Ignored Wikileaks Cables

from the how-would-that-have-looked dept

Yesterday, Senator Joe Lieberman said that the NY Times should be "investigated" for publishing articles with some content from the State Department's leaked cables. In response,one of the reporters, who worked on the articles about the Wikileaks release, David Sanger, points out the obvious: how would it have looked if the NY Times ignored the story:
"The Times knew that this material was going to be out there anyway. We didn't get the initial leak," he says. "If we had done nothing — if we had ignored it -- I think it would have looked strange. I think that also would have been irresponsible. It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government."
Sanger also notes that the role of reporting in such cases is to try to put that information in context:
"We had to explain how this changed America's position in the world," he says. "Just as in the publication of the Pentagon Papers decades ago, when we had to explain how those documents, which also leaked, enabled us to understand very differently a war that America was in very deeply."
This is an important point, though I think he overplays how much people actually relied on the NY Times reporting for such info. There are some folks out there who say that "Wikileaks isn't journalism" but I agree with Mathew Ingram that Wikileaks is absolutely a media entity. It's just that, as with other areas of other industries, the roles may be shifting. Wikileaks gets data out there and then anyone can help add the context. That seems a lot more valuable than the traditional gatekeeper system where we only get to hear what the gatekeepers want us to hear.

Either way, having the NY Times ignore the story because Senator Lieberman doesn't like it would have looked a hell of a lot more questionable than it doing its job as a part of the press and actually reporting on the info that's out there.
Hide this

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: journalism, wikileaks
Companies: ny times, wikileaks


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 5:22am

    Re: Wikileaks redacts and censors, and withholds information..

    Yea right, that would be a true statement if wikileaks, had all the information they have available to the public, but on the 250,000 documents he has he is up to about 350 I think.

    He also 'redacts' or censors his content, he does not release it all.


    Damned if you do, damned if you don't, Darryl?
    If he didn't redact the files, you'd be complaining that Wikileaks endangers lives by releasing names of informants.
    They are steadily going through the stack of the 250000 documents and have news agencies and newspapers help them scan those documents to see which data could be very harmful and endangers lives.

    That's why the rhetoric from your precious politicians is so disingenuous. Firstly, Wikileaks asked the DoD to help them go through the documents to redact the names that should remain hidden. The DoD said "no". And now they complain that Wikileaks endangers lives, despite the fact that they don't.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.