WikiLeaks vs. the New York Times

Truthfully, I should probably state that until today I had yet to visit the WikiLeaks site. Even during the days when Julian Assange was receiving daily coverage, I didn’t feel the need to go to WikiLeaks. Everyone around me was discussing what was contained in the diplomatic cables, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to go to WikiLeaks and read the reports. After visiting the site today, I must admit that overall I was a bit disappointed. With all the talk surrounding WikiLeaks I expected more than a typical news website, which is what WikiLeaks felt like to me.

Maybe I felt this way because I agreed with what Aaron Bady said regarding WikiLeaks and the New York Times. Bady’s point was that WikiLeaks is essentially performing the same functions as a traditional news publication that receives protection under the First Amendment. Bady states, “…it’s difficult to criminalize what WikiLeaks has done without also making a criminal out of the New York Times.”

As Ingram points out, “WikiLeaks’ stated intention is to bring transparency to the political process and expose wrongdoing. Isn’t that the same thing that the Times does?” While one organization, the Times, is a reputable news organization and the other, WikiLeakes, is an organization with little to no history, their respective purposes are similar. The difference between these two organizations lies in their methodologies for obtaining data and ability to act as a source for news.

Perhaps WikiLeakes is performing one component of an emerging new media ecosystem. Ingram makes an interesting argument when he states that, “media – a broad term that includes what we think of as journalism – has been dis-aggreated or atomized; in other words, split into its component parts…” WikiLeaks serves the role of uber-watchdog by providing complete transparently and acting as a news source when it comes to government processes. Ingram hypothesizes that this role is typically bundled with other functions of journalism, such as civic responsibility, and as part of its bundle may not be as visible.

As the role WikiLeaks serves is a component of journalism, it is hard not to see WikiLeaks as journalistic in some way. Watchdog or investigative journalism serves the purpose of highlighting or uncovering wrongdoing by public figures and usually leaves its readers with less than favorable feelings. In the case of WikiLeaks, they don’t fulfill another role within journalism, and as such may be exclusively associated with the unsavory role of watchdog. But, does this make them any less journalistic than the other five newspapers (i.e., El Pais, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and the New York Times) that released the cables in a redacted format on Nov. 28, 2010?