Yes, we got the raw information as well, but often after highly publicized, deeply editorialized publicity stunts.
I agree with the premise of the headline: an organization like Wikileaks is incredibly valuable to a functional and transparent democracy. Wikileaks itself, however, suffers from far too many fundamental problems to serve as anything other than a vague outline of what such an organization should be.
He also acknowledges that Wikileaks is an “activist organization” that uses “transparency as its method”[2].
I do not necessarily agree with the editorial voice of Wikileaks but the style of journalism that it promotes is obviously a Good Thing.
[2] http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/logan-symposium-explor...
† Redaction to protect the life and/or livelihood is an exception.
EDIT: I meant “kind of journalism” rather than “style of journalism”.
I very much disagree.
The type of editorializing Wikileaks engages in fundamentally undermines their credibility as an information clearing house. When the raw information takes a back seat to the editorial content, it makes it easier for those that would seek to suppress that information to discredit them as a source.
It simply comes down to trust, and I have personal issues trusting a source that has a stated goal of editing and framing the information they release to suit their agenda.
The Collateral Murder release really is a great example of some of the many issues with Wikileaks' approach. It deliberately presents the footage out of context with post-hoc commentary that frames the entire thing in a pretty misleading light, all wrapped up in an intentionally incendiary title.
And the real tragedy of that?
The story behind the footage is tragic enough that it doesn't need that sort of spin to be effective. Wikileaks tried to tack on claims of deliberate maliciousness to what is, in reality, a clear illustration of the brutal, wasteful, and confusing nature of war in the real world. And, by doing so, Wikileaks made it easier for their critics to dismiss them as propagandists since that's essentially what they were engaging in.
I want an information clearing house that I can trust to simply perform the role of disseminating information while protecting themselves and their sources. I simply don't believe that such a clearing house can be trusted and taken seriously while also pushing an editorial agenda.
