The Background Story Of The NY Times' Relationship With Julian Assange
from the complex-actors-in-complex-situations dept
If you haven’t yet, set aside some time to read the NY Times’ executive editor Bill Keller’s account of the paper’s association with Julian Assange. It gives some interesting (and not too surprising) background details about the relationship, Assange himself, and Keller’s views on the overall impact of Wikileaks. Assange, not surprisingly, does not come off too well in the account, reinforcing the reports of his being someone who has an incredible ego and a conspiratorial bent. By this point, such claims are pretty much old news, but from an anecdotal level, the story is still entertaining.
Keller’s final suggestion that Wikileaks’ impact has been “overblown” is belied somewhat by the fact that Keller just spilled so much ink on the background of the paper’s association (and subsequent blacklisting) with the organization. There are other points that could be nitpicked, but it’s not surprising that Keller seeks to position the NY Times in the best possible light, and perhaps minimize the contributions of Wikileaks itself. But, just the fact that the NYT’s is now considering its own Wikileaks, shows that the idea certainly has changed the way many people think about this aspect of reporting.
I’d argue — as some others have — that the impact of Wikileaks has actually been both over- and under-estimated. And part of the problem is that so many people are quick to conflate the idea of such an organization with the single organization itself (or worse, with a single person in the form of an easily dislikable Julian Assange). But it’s a mistake to think that just because the particular organization itself is flawed, that its existence and what it’s accomplished so far won’t have profound effects on secrecy in organizations (government and corporate), the practice of journalism itself (which has suddenly gotten a hint of what’s possible), and the idea of distributed or “stateless” organizations as enablers of information flow. It’s that last point that I think many are ignoring, and that will later prove to be a mistake.
Filed Under: bill keller, journalism, julian assange, leaks, ny times, sources, wikileaks
Companies: ny times, wikileaks
Comments on “The Background Story Of The NY Times' Relationship With Julian Assange”
Sometimes
I would cut Assange some slack on the “conspiratorial bent” issue.
Re: Sometimes
Wow. Just wow, Mike.
So, if I suspect that you have a big ego and a conspiratorial bent, should I dislike you easily?
I wasn’t inclined to (despite those observations), but if you insist….
CBMHB
Assange, not surprisingly, does not come off too well in the account, reinforcing the reports of his being someone who has an incredible ego and a conspiratorial bent. By this point, such claims are pretty much old news, but from an anecdotal level, the story is still entertaining.
Actually, it is really key in all of this. Behind everything, it appears that Julian has an agenda, and that agenda appears to intersect with the Pirate Party and others in that arena. It serves to negate a lot of what is good in this, because his actions and his associations show that he isn’t for the truth, he is for a political cause.
Ever notice that Wikileaks is a very secretive organization? Why?
Re: Re:
It’s funny how your desperation to whine about Assange shows your complete inability to address the actual facts.
Re: Re: Re:
The facts aren’t that special. You would have to live with your head in the sand to think that politicians all over the world say one thing publically and do something else in secret. You would have to be ignorant to assume that everyone is on the up and up all the time.
The facts really aren’t all that impressive.
The “use” of the facts as a weapon, now that is impressive and interesting. The question of motivations. The questions of why wikileaks holds the world up to a higher standard than it holds it’s own board and it’s own people is interesting. Finding out the true goals of wikileaks is incredibly interesting.
That a site and an organization all about transparency is itself incredibly secretive and paranoid is telling.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
simple:
– Public entities are supposed to be transparent.
– Private Entities aren’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wikileaks has connections to governments and political parties. Should they be more or less transparent than an individual who is working with the US government overseas to find terrorists?
Shouldn’t wikileaks hold themselves to the same high standards, considering their connections to public officials?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
so if you know famous ppl you should loose your right to privacy? is that what you’re saying?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Wikileaks has connections to governments and political parties.”
Define connections and then make your citation.
“Should they be more or less transparent than an individual who is working with the US government overseas to find terrorists?”
Sigh. No. They should absolutely be held to the exact same transparency standards as those that work with the US government overseas to find terrorists.
Like, say, Blackwater for instance, or whatever they’re calling themselves this week. They should be as transparent as Blackwater.
In other words, completely opaque.
Try again….
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
connection to icelandic governement: Birgitta J?nsd?ttir
Connection to the pirate party / related groups: Their current hosting arragements.
I am confident there are plenty of other connections, but since wikileaks isn’t a very transparent organization, we have no idea.
See the problem?
As for blackwater, well, let’s just say that they are pretty much assholes. But they are also exceptional assholes, and we shouldn’t lower our standards to their level, should we?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“connection to icelandic governement: Birgitta J?nsd?ttir”
I know she was a former contributor, so I guess I’ll half give you that one. Doesn’t really align them with the Icelandic govt. as a whole, however.
“Connection to the pirate party / related groups: Their current hosting arragements.”
I know the PP OFFERED to host, but I don’t remember seeing that that was actually happening. Citation?
“I am confident there are plenty of other connections, but since wikileaks isn’t a very transparent organization, we have no idea.”
Fine, so we can set those assumptions aside for the moment as there’s no credible evidence to suggest it.
“See the problem?”
Honestly, not really. I see a POTENTIAL problem that’s thus far been negated by the fact that all the cables they’ve released and the other information they’ve released has been deemed genuine and authentic by parties not particularly freindly to Wikileaks. Until the authenticity of documents is called into question, what’s the problem?
“As for blackwater, well, let’s just say that they are pretty much assholes. But they are also exceptional assholes, and we shouldn’t lower our standards to their level, should we?”
A fair statement, but if people (you?) can suggest that we hold WL to a certain standard that our own govt. is willing to match, what’s the point of all this?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Hosting:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-strikes-hosting-deal-with-wikileaks-100817/
I figure torrent freak is the accepted news source here.
For the Icelanding government, let’s just say that their reaction to the twitter warrant was very public and very high end, something that is not normally done. Summoning in the ambassador and making loud official public protests is a pretty heavy move for something of that nature. It would suggest that the “former” contributor is still very much part of the game.
the fact that all the cables they’ve released and the other information they’ve released has been deemed genuine and authentic by parties not particularly freindly to Wikileaks.
That in itself raises questions. If they are only selectively releasing information, why? Does some of the other information hurt friends?
In the end, WL raises more questions than it answers, and clearly appears to be hiding something.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Seriously, TAM, you really don’t read the articles, do you?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there you go, doing it again. Amusing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The facts really aren’t all that impressive.”
You didn’t read the NYT article at all, did you? I understand, it’s quite long. However, one important point made by Keller is:
“News mostly advances by inches and feet, not in great leaps. The value of these documents ? and I believe they have immense value ? is not that they expose some deep, unsuspected perfidy in high places or that they upend your whole view of the world. For those who pay close attention to foreign policy, these documents provide texture, nuance and drama. They deepen and correct your understanding of how things unfold; they raise or lower your estimation of world leaders. For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more.”
That’s the key. We can all focus on the fact that Assange is likely a tool in many respects, and more and more reports are coming out that his newfound celebrity has resulted in erratic and haughty behavior.
Big fucking deal. I don’t give two shits about Julian Assange. I care about the information. And his information has been deemed authentic and credible over and over and over again by well established experts and the journalists involved (I swear to God, if one person says citation needed, forcing me to point back to the source article of this very post, I’m going to punch an infant).
I don’t care what he’s trying to use it for, because his plans for use have been co-opted by…EVERYONE. They do what they want with the information.
So enough about the cult of Assange. No one cares. You’ll notice there isn’t report after report coming out in droves about what he’s doing while under house arrest. No one cares. It’s the information we’re interested in, not Julian Assange….
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The question of motivations. The questions of why wikileaks holds the world up to a higher standard than it holds it’s own board and it’s own people is interesting. Finding out the true goals of wikileaks is incredibly interesting.”
Now don’t you sound all conspiratorial.
Several things you are doing which I find interesting. The first is assigning a single goal to an organization. It is almost never as simple as that. The second is sometimes people with high ideals are seriously flawed indiviuals. Just look at the people who founded the US.
“That a site and an organization all about transparency is itself incredibly secretive and paranoid is telling.”
Governments should be open to the people they represent, secrecy causes nothing but back room dealings and corruption. As proven by these leaked cables.
Governments don’t have any right to monitor or spy or know everything about its citizens.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Governments should be open to the people they represent, secrecy causes nothing but back room dealings and corruption. As proven by these leaked cables.
Would it not change your opinion of wikileaks as an organization if you discovered that, say, the Iranian government was a major funding agent, or that perhaps (broke ass) Icelandic government is attempting to use the leaks to try to get out of their insane debt issues?
The problem is that wikileaks itself isn’t transparent, and doesn’t clearly state why it does what it does, and that in itself makes it motives very much open to interpretation. Obviously a couple of external connections have been exposed, and you have to wonder what else is going on under the hood.
The lack of transparency is telling.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ah yes, their super secret conspiracy motive is to…release the files to 4 separate newspapers that can do whatever the hell they want with them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The problem is you don’t know, so you have no idea if you are getting all the information or only part of the information, and you don’t know who is benefiting from it. Wikileaks is insanely secretive and not at all transparent, which is the ultimate irony from a group apparently dedicated to transparency. Heck, Assange can’t even pick a country to live in long enough to pay taxes (hello tax dodger!)
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Ah yes TAM, there must be more to the story!!!!
And your obsession with whining about the secrecy of WikiLeaks has been debunked time and time again, so I don’t know why you insist on repeating it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The idea behind it was to remove secrecy as much as possible. Assange is nothing mroe or less than a figurehead. And no, it wouldn’t change my opinion if I found out it was funded by the CIA, Al-Qai’da, and the FARC.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So you’re advocating transparency now? What time does that expire? Is there still time to get an argument in before it runs out?
Roll up, roll up folks! Exclusive Offer – Today Only!
Free transparency advocacy from TAM!
Hurry Folks!! Offer will not last longer than 1 thread!!*
*DISCLAIMER: 1 thread OR 1 counter-argument, whichever is first.
NB: TAM cannot be held to any argument or statement previously made by TAM. Ever. Any statements must be taken in complete isolation from logic, reality, and the universe in general, in order to avoid all conflicting facts and statements and any confusion. Any reference to a valid argument, past, present or future, is entirely co-incidental and should not be mistaken for intelligence.
Re: Right
He can’t be telling the truth, because he has an opinion. That makes no sense.
Wow, these people are americans ...
This is a quote from the author of the article about US citizens.
“Much of the concern reflected a genuine conviction that in perilous times the president needs extraordinary powers, unfettered by Congressional oversight, court meddling or the strictures of international law and certainly safe from nosy reporters.”
No wonder we have arrived at the point we are at.
All-in-all A good thing
Again, more evidence that Assange is most likely some kind of weirdo with a mission.
I agree that it doesn’t really change the positive impact of what Wikileaks represents. For times when democracy is sick, shining a light at government secrets is a good start for getting better.
Re: All-in-all A good thing
actually, i seem to remember reading an article or two where he is quoted as outright stating that he Did have an agenda, actually.
even went on to specify what it was.
the point in the leaks were not to reveal the information, but to cause a reaction in those who were taking these dubious and secret actions which would, in attempting to prevent further leaks, paralyze their ability to conduct such actions. (note, this Shouldn’t actually stop a government functioning… though it might if said government is excessively reliant on back room dealings and duplicity. for a while at least)
didn’t book mark the articles in question and it was a while ago, but i probably got there form techdirt in the first place, so *shrugs*
Re: Re: All-in-all A good thing
His answer to motivation is self-serving and sort of self-refering. It creates a convenient public face, but still doesn’t answer the very simple question “why”? He answered “what” very well, but not the why. Why does he do it, as opposed to forming a political party or something similar. He doesn’t even really expose the goal or the end.
Heck, if the ends justify the means, how can we justify the means without knowing the ends?
Consider the source
Wikileaks didn’t publish Judith Miller’s falsehoods to get the US into Iraq, the Times did. It didn’t delay publishing about the Bush administration illegally tapping Americans’ phones until after a presidential election by government request, the Times did. Wikileaks doesn’t provide a platform for anonymous smears in service of the powerful, the Times does.
I’d trust the Times’ gossipy tell-alls about as much as I would trust an abstinence ad from Ted Haggard.
"Old" media still claiming to be unbiased
From the article:
We regarded Assange throughout as a source, not as a partner or collaborator, but he was a man who clearly had his own agenda.
The NY Times doesn’t have an agenda? The Guardian? Every person and every organization has biases and agendas.
The real problem is not agendas or biases, it is believing yours don’t exist – or claiming they don’t.
“Fair and balanced” ? Yeah, right.
Gawker reveals story behind Keller's rant
Gawker posted an expose at http://bit.ly/gawker-keller-expose
Here's why wikileaks isn't considered 'journalism'
The article points out how the Times gives advance warning to the White House regarding articles they publish and had several (daily) meetings to discuss what was to be published. Wikileaks, on the other hand, doesn’t ask for approval from the US government before reporting information. What kind of press would we have if news agencies didn’t give Uncle Sam a seat on the editorial staff? I say Bravo to the Times. I only want the official news that the state has a hand in producing. Not this wild-west pirate news.
/sarcasm
From the article: …Dean Baquet, our Washington bureau chief, gave the White House an early warning on Nov. 19. The following Tuesday, two days before Thanksgiving, Baquet and two colleagues were invited to a windowless room at the State Department, where they encountered an unsmiling crowd. Representatives from the White House, the State Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the F.B.I. and the Pentagon gathered around a conference table. Others, who never identified themselves, lined the walls. A solitary note-taker tapped away on a computer.
The meeting was off the record, but it is fair to say the mood was tense. Scott Shane, one reporter who participated in the meeting, described ?an undertone of suppressed outrage and frustration.?
Subsequent meetings, which soon gave way to daily conference calls, were more businesslike. Before each discussion, our Washington bureau sent over a batch of specific cables that we intended to use in the coming days. They were circulated to regional specialists, who funneled their reactions to a small group at State, who came to our daily conversations with a list of priorities and arguments to back them up….
Wikileaks is bunch of bitchy criminals
Wikileaks WAS NEVER a non-profit organization.
Both Wikipedia on Wikileaks and Wikileaks itself state to be a non-profit organization. But Wikileaks WAS NEVER a non-profit organization. Wikileaks is a private business of Julian Assange, which was later incorporated and registered as a private limited company named SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, with Julian Assange having 94% of shareholding.
A true non-profit organization, regardless where it is registered, either in Australia, Sweden, Iceland or United States, has some important characteristics. A true non-profit organization is registered, transparent, accountable, responsible and abides by law. Wikileaks aka Julian Assange aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF are nothing of that.
Both Julian Assange and the company SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, lie on their websites to be a non-profit organization: http://wikileaks.ch/About.html where they state: “WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation”. The suffix EHF in Iceland means “private limited company” and such company is forbidden to claim to be a non-profit organization. Private limited companies with shareholders may not be called “non-profit” organizations.
The business purpose of his WikiLeaks company, aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF in Icelandic say that the company’s purpose is the production, editing and distribution of media content, video content, language and print media, web design and hosting industry, retailers and wholesalers, real estate and business lending and related activities. Full company documents are to be found here: http://wikileakscriminalorganization.com
WIKILEAKS IS NOT REGISTERED
Wikilekas is NOT an entity, it is not an organization, and it was NOT REGISTERED anywhere under the name “Wikileaks”. It was not a legal entity nor any kind of organization, but a private loose group of people led by Julian Assange.
Wikileaks have been sending press releases and promoting itself as an international non-profit organization, at the time when it was not an entity organized or registered under any law. To claim in public to be non-profit organization may be alone a criminal act in many of related countries, including Australia, Iceland, Sweden and United States.
WIKILEAKS IS NOT TRANSPARENT
Wikileaks was never transparent enough to say who is behind the supposed “non-profit organization”. They have tried and are still deceiving the large public to be a non-profit, while in turn it was private revenue system of the entrepreneur Julian Assange. Today, they state on their website, correctly, that “WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press”, and they deceive the public to send “donations” to the private limited company, for profit organized, SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF.
Wikileaks is further deceiving the public, by claiming it is a non-profit organization, and don’t want to disclose, that the company has four shareholders, which are:
Julian Paul Assange, with 470,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Kristinn Hrafnsson, from Reykjavik with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Ingi R. Ingason, Mosfellsbaer with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Gavin MacFadyen, U.S. citizen, living in London, with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Wikileaks business model is based on supposed transparency of the government, while they directly fail to provide its own transparency.
Re: Wikileaks is bunch of bitchy criminals
wikileaks also ran over my dog, threw rocks at my cat and poisoned my goldfish.
Funny thing you notice when you poke around a little..
wikileaks is a criminal blah blah .com is owned and operated by..
hmm..
they don’t say.
Well, just check whois.. oh, a proxy service.
I know! there seems to be a company name “Accurate Information, Inc”
just what is a broker company in this context? what else has “Accurate Information, Inc” been doing? Where can i see the tax statements for mr Sharp? Is “Accurate Information, Inc” being paid by a third party to perform their “message measurement and enhancement for technical marketers.” tasks? what is the purpose of this “Message Enhancement” service?
What’s that? not terribly forthcoming with private and business details?
accurateinfodotinfoisacriminalorganization.com
see how foolish that starts to look?
i hope you are paid well to put together your rubbish in the attempts to make disparate quotes look earth-shattering.
Re: Wikileaks is bunch of bitchy criminals
Wikileaks caused that wart on my penis!
connection to icelandic governement: Birgitta J?nsd?ttir
Connection to the pirate party / related groups: Their current hosting arragements.
I am confident there are plenty of other connections, but since wikileaks isn’t a very transparent organization, we have no idea.
See the problem?
As for blackwater, well, let’s just say that they are pretty much assholes. But they are also exceptional assholes, and we shouldn’t lower our standards to their level, should we?
So Iceland is out to get the US? Really? Does anyone in the US have a negative opinion of Iceland at all? For all I know, Iceland is filled with hot looking blondes. Does Iceland want to bring the US down because they are afraid we will come and take their women?
Blackwater is filled with a bunch of assholes? Really? Considering the job they are hired to do, I would imagine that your mamby pamby way of viewing life might not be in line with their reality. You go protect a tanker from pirates and see how your life is. You go protect a convoy in Afghanistan. Oh, thats right, you would just talk to people to convince them to not kill you and those you protect.
Re: Re:
Just what is it that makes Blackwater dive into a raging, ic-cold river to save a solid gold baby?
we get it wikileaks inst transparent, I for one am glad.
Wiki wiki wiki
Although the words can be used differently by different groups, the simplest way to distinguish between them is to think of “not-for-profit” as an activity, like reading a book. The term “nonprofit” refers to an organization that is not intended to make a profit, like an adult literacy group.
I believe his website details are then accurate.
Wikileaks aftermath
To me the intent of wikileaks is clear. Conscientious people – fed up with large scale abuse of power and privilege speak truth to power. Mr. Killer is right in saying:
“News mostly advances by inches and feet, not in great leaps. The value of these documents ? and I believe they have immense value ? is not that they expose some deep, unsuspected perfidy in high places or that they upend your whole view of the world. For those who pay close attention to foreign policy, these documents provide texture, nuance and drama. They deepen and correct your understanding of how things unfold; they raise or lower your estimation of world leaders. For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more.”
By aggregating news and organizing it in stream based on the source (http://www.kbucket.com/main/view_kbucket/35) here is what I have learned:
The main US media (the ones followed are NYTimes, Washington Post, Fox News and a few others) are more opinionated than investigative!
The British papers namely Guardian and BBC are much more reliable as independent news sources.
The US political blogs have mostly followed their media outlets instead of delivering refreshing analysis.
The Technical blogs have delivered the most meaningful dialog.
German and Spanish papers (as original sources of the leaks) have hardly reported anything in the past month!
To see the difference in focus and reporting and to she some light on the coverage compare the tag “Wikileaks aftermath” on the US Papers stream to the one under Technical blogs and UK papers (http://www.kbucket.com/main/view_kbucket/35)
I imagine this is the kind of careful analysis that shes light on Wikileaks and its value to the society.
Re: Wikileaks aftermath
To me the intent of wikileaks is clear. Conscientious people – fed up with large scale abuse of power and privilege speak truth to power.
You still miss the second part, which is “to what end?”. What it the absolute goal of Wikileaks, at what point or situation can they say “our work is done”?
That is key. There is a lot of work going on here. It isn’t just to tweak noses for fun. There is a goal or a target, something they want. What is it?
Re: Re: Wikileaks aftermath
Your misplaced display of ill-conceived ramblings is ridiculous. You’re a pathetic wannabe pundit with delusions of wisdom and relevance. Fuck you.
Re: Re: Re: Wikileaks aftermath
You on the other hand, are nothing, not even worth the time of day. Likely a frustrated kool aid drinker who logged out of their account and started posting under this name as sort of a drunk dial thing. It usually comes from people who realize they are wrong, but they cannot accept it, because it goes against everything they have been spewing in public, to their friends, and in private discussions for a long time.
So, do you know any other four letter words?
Re: Re: Wikileaks aftermath
It really isn’t that difficult TAM, if you actually read any of the source material.