Syndicate content

Add new comment

Good, thoughtful piece Shanthi. I think there's a misperception abroad that Wikileaks is a sort of clearing house of data. They actually add considerable value to the data that they do put out. There's a clear filtering and value-adding process involved, whether or not one agrees with what they eventually come up with, or the preconceptions that they start from. Hence my criticism of conventional media (and others) who underestimate both Wikileaks and the sophistication of crowdsourcing techniques. Journalists still believe they're at the intersection of informational value, and that they somehow own that space. It's no longer true, unfortunately. But it feeds into the other misperception: that what we're seeing is something that needs to be institutionally enshrined, in the way that journalism relied on laws of freedom of information and speech in order to function. Wikileaks operates outside these traditions. It really is outside the state. So it makes no difference whether there are laws either to protect or constrain. It's not that Wikileaks might not be shut down, or its most visible figures challenged in court. It's that a need, a market, has arisen for individuals who feel the need to unburden their organisations and themselves of information that they feel, rightly or wrongly, should be in the public domain. That Wikileaks is able to convince people that they can do this relatively safely is in itself a feat. That they're then able to assemble a team to turn that data into something useful and valuable to traditional media (and by extension the public) is an extra layer of achievement we'll look back on as the dawning of a new age. And not one, sadly, that reflects particularly well on our (former or present) profession. Jeremy