The WikiLeaks rival

A so-called rival for the WikiLeaks site has been launched called ‘SafeHouse’. The SafeHouse organisation is similar to WikiLeaks in that it is a ‘whistle-blowing’ website, which publishes ‘online submissions to help uncover fraud and abuse in business and politics’ (Independent, 2011). The site also suggests that it follows similar file encryptions and/ or ‘the possibility for a contributor or whistleblower to remain anonymous’ (Independent, 2011), this is very similar to WikiLeaks itself.

WikiLeaks prides itself on its anonymous dropbox, which boasts ‘combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles’ (WikiLeaks, 2011). Robert Thomson, a journal managing editor for SafeHouse, said that; "SafeHouse will enable the collection of information and documents that could be used in the generation of trustworthy news stories" (Independent, 2011).

The site is clearly comparable to WikiLeaks, but whether it actually achieves similar success as WikiLeaks has remains to be seen. Having studied WikiLeaks for the past nine months this is the first time I have stumbled across any kind of rival for the site. However, even The New York Times have considered ‘the creation of a site for leakers’ (Independent, 2011), which shows just how much of an impact WikiLeaks has had on the media landscape.

An article which has remained with me since I began blogging states that; ‘the whistleblowing site has created a new media landscape’ (Guardian, 2011), which essentially means that the site has created a publishing trend that cannot be stopped. I believe this to be significant because it summarises the sheer scale and/or impact WikiLeaks has had on the media world.

Sites may try to imitate what it is that WikiLeaks has achieved, but they will always be the trend-setter, an organisation that cannot be tamed.

http://www.wikileaks.ch/About.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/wall-street-journal-launches-wikileaks-rival-2280144.html

The Independent recently sent one of their journalists (during May 2011) for a job interview with Julian Assange himself. Julian asked rather intimidating questions, including: “What would you do if you had to kill one man to save a hundred?" (Independent, 2011). The interviewee wondered if he, perhaps, was ‘glimpsing the fringes of Assange's philosophy’ (Independent, 2011).

The article defines that WikiLeaks was ‘involved in big, interesting movements – cultural shifts, imperious challenging of authority for the notion of complete transparency’ (Independent, 2011). The notion of transparency (as mentioned in previous blog entries) is something WikiLeaks holds in high regards, in fact the website itself actually states that;

‘Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media’ (WikiLeaks, 2011)

This is how WikiLeaks defines itself; it believes that ‘transparency’ leads to a better society, a society where people are not kept in the dark about the governments decisions. Whilst, to a certain extent, I agree with this idea of transparency, I also believe that in some instances it fails to ‘reduce corruption’. With reference to previous blog entries concerning the Guantanamo Bay cables, this is one example where WikiLeaks has failed in making democracies stronger. The files released names of people detained in the prison, which meant that the prisoners could be found, and potentially put in danger by the general public.

Another factor that has negatively affected the WikiLeaks site concerns Assange and the sexual assault charges being made against him. The Independent recognised this, and wrote; ‘I suggest that Assange's profile and ego, compounded by his notorious court case, have overshadowed the work they do’ (Independent, 2011).

Obviously the site has had many triumphs and is clearly becoming more and more familiar as newer cables are released, but often it is better to look at what WikiLeaks is doing, distinct from what the press claim it is doing. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/a-wikileaks-job-interview-julian-will-see-you-now-2281114.html

The gagging injunction.

The press has exploded recently in light of recent super injunctions being carried out by celebrities. The Guardian, Observer (2011) published an article called Twitter and WikiLeaks have made a mockery of the courts, which suggests that the two organisations have published documents against court orders.

Peter Preston (the article’s writer) argues that because technology is ‘moving faster year by year’ it has made the ‘ultimate confrontation inevitable’ (Guardian, Observer, 2011). With relation to WikiLeaks this could connote that due to advances in technology it has made things increasingly easy for the site to distribute highly classified information. The article posits that WikiLeaks is an unstoppable force by writing; ‘But stop the leaks? There was – and still is – no way’ (Guardian, Observer, 2011).

An essay written by Professor Geoffrey Stone picks up on the notion that;

"Just as the law can no longer effectively deal with obscenity because of social and technological change, so too can it no longer deal with non-newsworthy invasions of privacy," he writes. "For all practical purposes", the defences of privacy "have been gobbled up completely." So, whether in Seattle or the Strand, we had "better learn to live with it". (Guardian, Observer, 2011)

This conveys that there is no longer any privacy within the media, and this is due to sites such as Twitter and/ or WikiLeaks who publish whatever they please. In light of the recent super-injunctions, concerning celebrities covering up their infidelity, one should ask whether this is really fair? Sites like WikiLeaks are just sticking to their basic human rights, which entitles them to freedom of speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/22/twitter-wikileaks-mockery-of-the-courts?INTCMP=SRCH

WikiLeaks, a new form of journalism?

I found an online article published today (Sunday the 22^nd of May, 2011) that discussed, with relation to WikiLeaks, the idea that journalists often manipulate stories in order to convey their perception.

The article raises issues of objectivity and subjectivity in reporting, as well as asking the ‘fundamental’ question: ‘what is truth’ (Guardian, 2011) in journalism? One reason why I find this article particularly interesting, is because WikiLeaks have described themselves as a ‘new model of journalism’ (WikiLeaks, 2011), a new model which believes in transparency in the media. This means that WikiLeaks believe that what it is doing is distinct from anything else. The articles writer, Stephen Pritchard, endeavours to explain what it is that WikiLeaks is/ does, by writing;

‘the WikiLeaks saga was an alliance of modern technology and good, old-fashioned journalism: of those 250,000 documents, fewer than 2,000 have been published in an meticulous editing process across five newspapers that sought out the best stories from a mountain of 300 million words: constructive documents praising governments or officials are unlikely to feature in such a process, however many were leaked in the first place. Good news doesn't make a story’ (Guardian, 2011)

The final part of this quotation is probably the most significant part of the whole article. It posits that people do not want to read about ‘good news’, which is perhaps why WikiLeaks has been so popular. The organisation shows bias towards a world where we know what our government is doing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/may/22/wikileaks-journalism-truth?INTCMP=SRCH

WikiLeaks: Scrutiny and Praise

In the past week WikiLeaks has suffered much criticism for the gagging order put in place to ensure confidentiality within the organisation. This has lead to condemnation from the press, who have suggested that WikiLeaks claims to be in favour of media transparency, but by ‘gagging’ their employees does this mean they are just as secretive as the government?

Among the recent bad press something quite significant has also happened for the site this week. Julian Assange has been given a ‘peace award for exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights’ (Guardian, 2011). It is undeniable that Julian’s achievements are quite remarkable; this is obviously mirrored through his award. Julian was said to be praised for "challenging centuries-old practices of government secrecy and by championing people's right to know" (Guardian, 2011). Again, this draws upon ideas of media transparency, something which WikiLeaks, supposedly, holds in very high regards.

The Guardian article describes how successful the organisation has been, even outlining some of its achievements (positive and negative);

‘WikiLeaks caused a media and diplomatic uproar late last year when it began to publish its cache of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, revealing secrets such as that Saudi leaders had urged US military action against Iran. Some US politicians said WikiLeaks should be defined as an international terrorist organisation’ (Guardian, 2011)

This shows the sheer scale of WikiLeaks and its accomplishments, as well as how US governments have defined the organisation. It is quite obvious that politicians would be set against the site and its aims because it is exposing their confidential files. Rather interestingly, the article ends with Assange’s definition of the sites triumphs, claiming that; ‘publication of the cables helped shape uprisings in north Africa and the Middle East and said WikiLeaks was on the side of justice’ (Guardian, 2011).  

I believe it is increasingly important to read about what WikiLeaks has accomplished rather than what it has not. The site is something so unique that it is constantly under pressure from the government and media, which is often reflected in the press.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/11/julian-assange-australian-peace-prize-wikileaks?INTCMP=SRCH

Gagging Order part 2

Controversy has struck yet again, this time in the form of the WikiLeaks gagging order. A German activist named Daniel Domscheit has said ‘in imposing the draconian confidentiality agreement on its employees WikiLeaks was behaving too much like the governments and businesses it purports to expose’ (Guardian, 2011). The gagging order is not dissimilar from the type of contract government officials must sign in order to keep certain exchanges confidential. However, I must point out that the gagging order is predominantly there to safeguard the employees and people who submit documents to the WikiLeaks site. Domscheit also exclaimed that he felt ‘sorry... for all those new staffers that had no idea what they were getting into” – with reference to working for the WikiLeaks organisation. This connotes that people who were to begin working for WikiLeaks were about to take on more responsibility then they knew.

As mentioned in my previous blog, the gagging order has a 12 million pound penalty if anyone comments and/ or reveals any information about the order. The writer of the article suggests that ‘WikiLeaks needs to get out of the gagging game’ (Guardian, 2011), because silencing this ‘dissent is not just ironic, it’s dangerous’ (Guardian, 2011).

Personally, I believe that this gagging order is something needed by the organisation. Assange is running a company where he needs to make sure he can trust people. However, I can see that this order is making the company more and more like a government organisation, rubbishing WikiLeaks belief of media transparency. Perhaps, WikiLeaks ought to re-think their gagging order, so that the people who sign it are not pressured into it, but feel willing to sign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/13/wikileaks-spokesman-assange-gagging-order?INTCMP=SRCH

The gagging contract

Last week it was revealed that WikiLeaks employees have had to sign a gagging contract, which means they are basically signing a contract to make sure they do not disclose any information about the site and/or the people who submit the documents. The article reveals that anyone who breaks this kind of super-injunction could face a 12 million pound penalty. The writer exposed that the contract was ‘by orders of magnitude the most restrictive I have ever encountered. Legal experts consulted about the document agree’ (Guardian, 2011). This shows that any restrictions put in place are merely there to make sure that any documents/ cables contributed to the site are kept highly confidential.

The writer (he once worked for WikiLeaks) discloses that he refused to sign the contract, which ensued in a rather hostile reaction from Assange who said that; ‘I must sign the document, or else risk the lives and wellbeing of everyone in the room, and never be trusted again’ (Guardian, 2011). The writer also revealed that the rest of the day (after his refusal to sign the contract) was spent by people urging him (desperately) to sign the agreement, ‘The rest of the day, and long into the night, was spent with other WikiLeakers begging, reasoning, or cajoling me into signing the document. I later learned Julian had specifically requested they use every possible effort to "apply psychological pressure" until I signed’ (Guardian, 2011).

The article does not portray Julian Assange as the cool and composed character he seems to come across as. In fact, the article leads one to believe that he is actually very frantic, and perhaps slightly aggressive. I would advocate that the reason he comes across this way is because of his passion for WikiLeaks, and I  happen to agree that WikiLeaks employees should sign a gagging document, otherwise the people who expose and/or leak documents to Assange could be found out fairly easily. Therefore, perhaps Assange’s persuasion techniques may seem fairly bold, but it only shows his dedication to the company he has spent the last 4-5 years building.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/12/wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement-julian-assange?INTCMP=SRCH