Comments on: Whistleblowing 2.0: Journalism Lessons from WikiLeaks

By: best golf

best golf — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 04:16:08 +0000

best golf…

[...]Whistleblowing 2.0: Journalism Lessons from WikiLeaks | Graham Moomaw[...]…

By: Daniel Colin Widrew

Daniel Colin Widrew — Sat, 15 May 2010 18:52:22 +0000

“Good arguments can be made by those who accuse WikiLeaks of hypocrisy, recklessness and muckraking. Most importantly, it remains unknown just how much of WikiLeaks content is actually leaked by anonymous sources and how much is obtained by hackers who then turn the material over to the site. . . It’s unlikely that the big newspapers will be recruiting hackers for their investigative teams any time soon.”

aside from the fact that one is illegal and one (sometimes) isn't, i fail to see the distinction here. what difference does it make whether someone hacks an organization to get information versus them working for the organization and leaking that same information? and why should a reporter or news agency (and i include wikileaks in this) care about the source of their information as long as the information itself is accurate? it seems to me that they accomplish the same goals with equally 'dishonest' methods. truth is truth.

By: Mad. Maupin

Mad. Maupin — Sat, 15 May 2010 17:19:12 +0000

Great article!!

By: Daniel Colin Widrew

Daniel Colin Widrew — Sat, 15 May 2010 12:52:22 +0000

By: Mad. Maupin

Mad. Maupin — Sat, 15 May 2010 11:19:12 +0000

Great article!!

By: TK

TK — Fri, 14 May 2010 10:26:04 +0000

Thanks for a solid article. A minor correction: The IMMI hasn't got any laws passed in Iceland yet. But they do have a chance of beeing passed in the current athmosphere of disillusion with government and industry caused by the banking fraud.

By: kakeybakey

kakeybakey — Thu, 13 May 2010 00:54:38 +0000

thanks for enlightening me about WikiLeaks.

By: kakeybakey

kakeybakey — Thu, 13 May 2010 00:54:13 +0000

Thanks for enlightening me about WikiLeaks.