Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NY Times Considers Creating a WikiLeaks Type Site

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the greatest-form-of-flattery dept.

News 114

eko3 writes "The New York Times is considering options to create an in-house submission system that could make it easier for would-be leakers to provide large files to the paper. From the article: 'Executive editor Bill Keller told The Cutline that he couldn't go into details, "especially since nothing is nailed down." But when asked if he could envision a system like Al Jazeera's Transparency Unit, Keller said the paper has been "looking at something along those lines."'"

cancel ×

114 comments

What this really is (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012122)

This is the New York Times hoping to get a scoop for free so they can increase readership without actually doing any real investigative journalism for themselves.

Re:What this really is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012144)

I think that concept was established over 20 years ago.

Re:What this really is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012314)

So what? If NY Times can get a "scoop" on anything that bloggers can't immediately get a hold of, then it's a win-win, for them as well as public.. It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame.

Re:What this really is (1, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012538)

I missed the Sarcasm emoticon in your post just after you said:

It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame

The NY Times is all located in the US, in New York state, and mostly in New York City. So a take down notice is easily delivered. Besides, the NYT is the lapdog of the liberal left, and not likely to leak anything of importance.

First Amendment you claim? If you still believe it has any teeth in the light of recent history you are delusional.

Re:What this really is (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012776)

yeah, lapdog for the liberal left [wikipedia.org] .

Apparently that word means something different in USAsia.

Re:What this really is (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013044)

I believe First Amendment will prevail if it is given a chance. But if take someone like Assange, put out a smear campaign and put him away for something else, then 1st Amendment is irrelevant.

You can't put away NY Times because you can't say "NY Times raped kids" or similar garbage. Any NY Times case would have to be fought over the actual publication, not proxy charges.

If Assange worked for NY Times, the published leaks would have been more selective (ie. no point in leaking useless chitchat), but funding would not have been cut off. NY Times has billions at disposal, provided there is interest in its stories. Individuals, even wealthy ones, do not have the same clout.

We need less martyrs, and more actual cases that deal with 1st Amendment. Martyrs simply produce proxy charges, like Assange.

Re:What this really is (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013896)

You really think that the New York Times would have published anything like what Wikileaks did? Or, do you think that the New York Times would have just turned the other way and decided not to deal with it and the liabilities. And really, the problem with the New York Times is that it doesn't -want- to stir up anything. While the New York Times (and all other mainstream media for that matter) has no problem attacking either the Republican or Democrat party, they still believe in the utter importance of American imperialism.

Re:What this really is (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35017030)

You really think that the New York Times would have published anything like what Wikileaks did?

Not "think" but "know". NYT was one of the three major papers whom wikileaks used as their fact-checkers and editors for all their latest major leaks.

So yes, we know that NYT would, and in fact by proxy did publish those facts.

Re:What this really is (1)

Omniscientist (806841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35014748)

Besides, the NYT is the lapdog of the liberal left..

Informative? Hardly [youtube.com] .

Re:What this really is (1)

thenewt (1974712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015814)

the NYT is the lapdog of the liberal left, and not likely to leak anything of importance.

That's the richest comment I've read on Slashdot in a long time. Hooh, boy.

Re:What this really is (2)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012922)

So what? If NY Times can get a "scoop" on anything that bloggers can't immediately get a hold of, then it's a win-win, for them as well as public.. It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame.

You're right, it is a new ball game, the NYT can sanitize the "leaks" thereby allowing business as usual. The NYT is nothing more than a propaganda machine using Himmler's techniques more effectively.

Re:What this really is (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013184)

It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame.

Yes, but if NY Times thinks they might get sued badly they won't publish it... Assange and the hordes of bloggers won't stop posting...
I remember a lot fuss about an AACS encryption key a few years ago... Which showed just how cowardly individual organizations can be when they have to stand up for free speech...
Yes, the information wasn't important in any way, but the question of whether you could censor it was... I was actually surprised that no big news papers jump on the story... It's my feeling that here in Denmark newspapers are standing in line to print the next book the military wants to censor, - just to get attention if nothing more...

I wouldn't trust them (3, Insightful)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012400)

This is the outfit that help us get into the Iraq War.

Re:I wouldn't trust them (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012536)

Which one? The first one or the current one? Trick question! Actually, the figurehead of the "Liberal Media" loves killing foreigners.

Re:What this really is (4, Insightful)

severoon (536737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012542)

Allow me to sum up: "NYT considers direction change: future is finding, reporting news, editors say."

Re:What this really is (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012576)

not only that, but they'll submit it to the government to water it down because they don't want to rock the boat or actually do journalistic work.

Re:What this really is (1)

Handover Phist (932667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013588)

I think that's an insult to journalistic values! Why kowtow to the govt to get their money when much more is there to be had through blackmail?

Re:What this really is (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013878)

I'd love to see the new york times answer that question.

lately however, they've been pretty much not covering anything the gov't doesn't want them to.

Re:What this really is (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35017014)

Agree with the parent. Trusting the NY Times to publish the unvarnished truth is wishful thinking. Watch the first 2 minutes of the interview below. The NYT's executive editor Bill Keller admits that the government censors their publication,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMn4q4FNHg [youtube.com]

Re:What this really is (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012738)

Why is this a bad thing? Their readers just want the stories. They don't care about how they got them as long as they stories are true.

Re:What this really is (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012938)

Yes, and then some other journalist who decides that by comparing it to wikileaks he can turn that into a story... The cool thing about wikileaks is that it's not a cooperate enterprise with it's own agenda...
If it were an attempt by the New York Times to show support for wikileaks, then maybe they should just host a mirror... Like everybody else... :)

Re:What this really is (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013300)

Actually, when I read the title, my mind translated it to, "Embrace, extend, extinguish." I've been wondering when some other enterprise would follow where Bill Gate's lead . . . . Support for Wikileaks? Never. They mean to beat Julian and company at their own game.

Re:What this really is (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013830)

Acutally it is. Julian has shown time and again that he is only doing wikileaks for the money.

The threaten lawsuit againist the gaurdian for releasing documents early. Complaining that the Newspaper was releasing court documents that showed Assange lied to the public about what was going on.

No one is holding Julian liable when he lies. He stopped talking to the media about his case when he got caught in the last one.

Wikileaks doesn't need Julian Assange. It would be a far better outfit if he left.

Re:What this really is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35016854)

I'm sorry, but to assume Wikileaks and the people behind it don't have an agenda, is bullshit.

Re:What this really is (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013122)

And? Isn't the main thing that vital information becomes available to the public?

And if NYTimes can make it cheaper and easier for themselves, isn't that a good thing? Much like rationalising a manufacturing process.

Re:What this really is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013290)

A bit like wikileaks?

Re:What this really is (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35014064)

Yeah, they just need to find time and talent to edit out sensitive parts without ANY help from the government or whichever party has most to lose if it's dumped raw, and then publicize the result while listening to thinly veiled death threats coming from US congresscritters. Piece of cake.

Re:What this really is (2)

Breathwork (1977146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35016516)

Actually, what is pathetic about this, is that should the New York Times actually get sensitive government information, they will run it by the State Department and Langley and Fort Meade boys first to see if it's OK to publish it, just like they did when they had the scoop the on NSA-Telecom deal. Ask yourself this - if you risk your life and your freedom to release sensitive information about government wrong-doing - do you give it to a guy outside of US control or to a newspaper who asks permission from the government first? This is a no brainer. The future of leaks is stateless organizations, not the co-opted American press corps.


Learn breathwork [vivation.com] and feel better fast.

They won't have the guts to do it right (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012132)

The NY Times *may* have once had some real balls, back in the Vietnam/Watergate days. People used to really believe in them (and the press in general) back in those days too. Anyone remember the scene at the end of Firestarter [imdb.com] where the guy takes the girl to the New York Times, knowing it's one of the few places she can tell her story that's safe from the government? Pretty typical attitude back in the "All the President's Men" era, when reporters regularly stood up to the government (or at least were perceived to).

But today they certainly don't have the guts to do it right. They will insist on editorial control of what gets actually posted, and once submitters see their stuff disappearing into a black hole (because the Times doesn't have the guts to publish anything that might offend their advertisers or subscribers, or *really* bring the government down on them), they'll go back to Wikileaks or other sites. No one wants to man-up and blow the whistle, only to have the NY Times kill their voice just as surely as the government would.

People don't believe in the press anymore. They've seen too many instances (like the second Iraq War) where the press served as little more than a cheerleader for the government, for big business, for nationalism, etc. No one still believes that The New York Times will be (or even could be) as free as Wikileaks.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012220)

It's true they fear the government being brought down on them. But they also equally fear the government being brought down around them, as the press forms an essential part of it.

Perhaps we should focus our leaking on the leaks the press won't leak.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (3, Informative)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012260)

That, and they would hold stories back for months or years as they have already done in the past - at the request of the government no less. I have no confidence in this and no one else should have either.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012752)

Or they'll hold back stories which hurt those who they want put in to power, as they've done in the past. As there are examples from the past few years, and the past few months, they're showing that they can't be trusted right now.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012330)

Wikileaks doesn't exactly do it right either. The right thing to do is to upload your data to RapidShare, et al. Then post it to USENET. Then dump it on Freenet.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35014164)

Amen. Governments and their corporate whelps will learn the hard way that in presence of Internet, the price of privacy is obscurity, and only a private individual can afford to pay it. Since they cannot obscure themselves, they could as well come out and play in the open, stop lying, start listening, and treat everyone fairly, or face the inevitable embarrassment of being caught with their pants down.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (4, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012782)

Your smug superiority doesn't match the data. The New York Times has been agressively covering wikileaks material, and indeed is their preferred US outlet. While they are certainly not "as free as" Wikileaks itself, I would argue that an org with a little transparency and accountability (sometimes opposing interests to freedom) would be preferable to what Wikileaks has given us.

Or better yet, an ecosystem of many, many outlets to choose from. Which is exactly what the Times, and Al Jazeera are working towards. So why are you pissing on it, +5 Insightful?

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (2)

kurish666 (1041420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013918)

>their preferred US outlet

Just plain wrong: WikiLeaks spurned New York Times, but Guardian leaked State Department cables [washingtonpost.com] .

The rest of your comment defending that propaganda rag is pretty hilarious.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015588)

Except of course that the Guardian is a British newspaper and can't be a preferred US outlet. Not saying that I disagree with your point about the NYT.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

lehphyro (1465921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35014190)

This is not the first time NYTimes goes against wikileaks: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/30359666491920385 [twitter.com] They didn't get the cablegate data because of some issues on Iraq data. So I don't think NYTimes is the wikileaks' preferred US outlet

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35014378)

I'd also like to point out the largest black eye that the New York Times still carries to this day.

Sitting on the Illegal U.S. Wiretapping Story for a year during the early Bush Administration.

Care to defend how a Corporate news agency will able to achieve the likes of what Wiki-leaks is doing?

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015352)

Uh, then why only one new article in the last month?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015396)

Uh, then why only one new article in the last month?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015458)

BULLSHIT

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012932)

Uh, she went to Rolling Stone, not the New York Times.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013358)

I was referencing the movie (see my link), not the book. In the movie, she goes to the New York Times. I never read the book, but someone else pointed out that she went to Rolling Stone in the book (which IMHO, is fucking stupid, as Rolling Stone by the late 70's was just as mainstream as the NY Times and a lot less likely to be interested in a story that didn't involve some vapid rock star's sexual conquests).

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013180)

Wait, that's how the Firestarter movie ended? Because in the novel they went to Rolling Stone magazine specifically because they couldn't trust a mainstream news outlet like the Times, if memory serves...

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013866)

"The NY Times *may* have once had some real balls, back in the Vietnam/Watergate days"

Were you thinking of the Washington Post, where Woodward and Bernstein worked?

Even the Post struggled with their conscience at the time, from what I hear. The BBC (of all organisations) completely folded when even slightly pressured by Blair's government over Iraq/Terrorism. The normal, well-established newspapers and media outlets just aren't setup for real, important leaks like this. Wikileaks is the best people have been willing to trust, apparently, considering that few real leaks appeared before Wikileaks. Freenet, I2P, or anonymous remailers would also be good solutions.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015104)

People don't believe in the press anymore.

All true. However having dozens of secured, separate places to submit content, makes it easier for the leakers, and the people who receive it, knowing that if they don't publish it, someone else may do it anyway, and they will just be held to account for hiding instead of publishing. Indeed being the first place to openly accept and publish leaked content has been very hard for Wikileaks, so the copycats are actually overdue compliments and protection in this case, I think.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35015372)

Anyone remember the scene at the end of Firestarter [imdb.com] where the guy takes the girl to the New York Times, knowing it's one of the few places she can tell her story that's safe from the government?

Never seen the film, but in the book it's Rolling Stone.....

That's so 2010... (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012178)

Aren't we a little late on the fadwagon NYT?

Re:That's so 2010... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012398)

It's "bandwagon". We don't need a new word to replace an existing word. That would be ricockulous.

Re:That's so 2010... (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012592)

I prefer ridonkulous

Re:That's so 2010... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35016026)

ripenisulous (as opposed to rivaginaulous).

Re:That's so 2010... (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012772)

"Fadwagon" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:That's so 2010... (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013338)

jimmerz28 just embiggened my vocabulary.

Re:That's so 2010... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013666)

I just spit my coffee on my boxen

(while were throwing non-words around)

Re:That's so 2010... (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35014334)

While "Possibleness" is not.

How much would you have to pay . . . (2)

TheReij (1641099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012218)

to gain access to the submission page? Not sure how the paywall would work on that one.

Terrists! (0)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012236)

OMG!!!!!!!!! NY Times r terrist's! Their doing same ass All Zajeeera!

Re:Terrists! (2)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012304)

They are the same as Al Jazeera; neither will report anything that is bad for business.

Good idea (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012270)

I see nothing wrong with this. An anonymous way to provide documents and video to the media would be great.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013606)

Indeed. When I read the article I thought:
Are they going to invent the Multi-Gig thumb-drive?
Then I remembered: Somebody already did.
OTOH, the German Army has had problems lately with postage machines ripping thumb-drives out of envelopes, so it's not that easy.

Much like I "considered" giving to charity. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012278)

But instead I got some filet mignon. It was tasty.

Obligatory... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012334)

*insert "NY times raped me" joke here*

Wikileaks is a broker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012390)

One important aspect of Wikileaks is that the journalists who end up making a decision to turn the information into a story or not are not the ones deciding if the information will be published at all. If you leak something to the New York Times and they decide it would harm their interests or the interests of the USA, then the source of the leak has taken the risk in vain.

Re:Wikileaks is a broker (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013394)

The unseen warning, when submitting a leak: "Your IP address has been logged - expect some unwanted attention from the IRS, the ATF, DEA, Secret Service, as well as various and sundry smut campaigns that can be waged against you, ala Julian Assange."

Re:Wikileaks is a broker (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35015134)

"Your IP address has been logged"

They just need to make a connection available a Tor hidden service. [torproject.org]

Registration required (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012444)

They expect leakers to sign up and watch a 30-second ad before commenting.

Never gonna happen.

Honeypot? (2)

wolfsdaughter (1081205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012462)

Would the NYT keep the submitter anonymous at all costs, and if not wouldn't this just become a honeypot for the US (or any) government?

Re:Honeypot? (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013176)

For the submission system to be worth a damn, the submitters would have to be anonymous to NYTimes as well. No data on submitters, not even IP address, should be saved.

Re:Honeypot? (1)

wolfsdaughter (1081205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013368)

If there's a timestamp on the submission, and the NYT's ISP has records of IP's connecting - then it starts getting easier to track back. Maybe something like TOR could help obfuscate the submitter, but I don't know enough about that stuff to say if there's even "right" way to do it...

Don't they already have one: a newspaper (4, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012470)

There's very little "wiki" to Wikileaks. As for leaking stuff, they pride themselves on having the stuff vetted and confirmed by a team of professional journalists.

So it's a website with a bunch of journalists. And some pointy haired boss in NYT is saying "Ooooh, we should set up one of those!"

The only question is: why to whistle blowers go to Wikileaks instead of NYT?

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (2)

hdd (772289) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012746)

because NYT and other news agencies, as recognized journalists, are in a better legal position to protected their sources.

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012948)

Which is complete bullshit. How can you call it freedom of the press if the government gets to decide what the press is?

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013604)

Which is complete bullshit. How can you call it freedom of the press if the government gets to decide what the press is?

A judge looking at a specific case will have to decide if a speaker is "the press" in that case. No judge will decide that the NYT is not a member of the press. It is conceivable that a judge would reason that a web site published by non-journalists outside the US hosting unedited, classified documents is not what the authors of the first amendment had in mind. I would disagree with that judge, but having the NYT host this avoids a long legal battle.

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35014158)

That makes no sense at all. If it's a "web site published by non-journalists outside the US", then a US judge has no jurisdiction on the matter. He can huff and puff until he's blue in the face, for all anyone cares.

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012860)

The original vision for Wikileaks was much more decentralized. At the time, reasonable people asked how they would prevent the system from being gamed via social attacks and spamming. They never found an answer, and opened a newspaper instead.

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013632)

The only question is: why to whistle blowers go to Wikileaks instead of NYT?

Hypothesis: because they don't trust traditional media in the US anymore (see above comment about lack of balls). Hypothesis 2: the novelty factor of Wikileaks is attractive to some, without any logical reason.

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35014904)

There's very little "wiki" to Wikileaks

True, but one might add that this used to be different. In the early days, they really were a wiki, and coincidentally, that's when the name was chosen.

Re:Don't they already have one: a newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35016180)

Both! Problem solved.

So, they hope to actually get leaks despite (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012568)

being in U.S. ? the country where everything is under the mercy of secret government agencies ?

after what happened with cryptome http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1910704&cid=34556662 [slashdot.org] , do you think that ANYone would trust nyt and leak ? nsa has been able to infiltrate a swiss establishment as such. they dont even need to infiltrate new york times.

Watch out for those chicks in the bar ... (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012600)

I hope that "Executive editor Bill Keller" has the common sense to restrain himself, when suddenly, after his LeakSite is online, chicks start trying to hit on him in bars. Otherwise, he can play cards with Julian Assange behind bars.

Assassinating the publishers of leaks is a dirty business. Assassinating their characters is a better, cleaner option.

Transparency from where? (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012622)

I find it sadly funny that we are followers, by a long ways, in the spectrum of transparency. We're being led by news organizations that are based in states who's record on transparency would on the surface seem to be much lower than our own.

I am Spartacus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35012730)

Congrats NYT. You *still* have it after all this time.

Narcs! (4, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35012796)

Um, the NYT are all too eager to kiss the asses of the people in power, and you know they would sell out their leakers in a heartbeat for a pat on the head from their corporate masters. Not in a million years would I leak any information to an NYT leak site. For all the many faults of Julien Assange, at least you know he's not gonna sell you out and that he'll try to really distribute the information he gets.

Re:Narcs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35014756)

Um, the NYT are all too eager to kiss the asses of the people in power, and you know they would sell out their leakers in a heartbeat for a pat on the head from their corporate masters. Not in a million years would I leak any information to an NYT leak site. For all the many faults of Julien Assange, at least you know he's not gonna sell you out and that he'll try to really distribute the information he gets.

Um, you don't see how that might be a little bit short sighted? This isn't the Mafia, once you turn someone in, they don't disappear. They are still around to shout up a storm about how their privacy was compromised, which leads to no more leaks. I'm not disagreeing with you that they put the interests of their advertisers, stockholders et. al. first, I'm just saying let's be realistic in our accusations. If they get this off the ground, that is FREE Journalism for them, which in turn sells more papers/subscriptions, which makes them more money (What their advertisers/corporate masters ACTUALLY want). Turning in a leaker throws that away, because that will guarantee people won't continue to leak to them. If they are going to throw all that away for nothing more than accolades, they are at least going to wait till it's a HUGE one, because they aren't going to get a second chance at it.

Re:Narcs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35015510)

NYT journalist goes to jail instead of revealing a source : http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/06cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=print
Just sayin.

Re:Narcs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35016926)

Julian Assange never gonna give you up?

does it matter? their own jornalists are corrupt (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013008)

does it matter? Since their own journalists are corrupt and just 'leak' and regurgitate what the white house tells them [during Bush's presidency].

The legacy of Wikileaks? (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013046)

First AlJazeera and now NYT. IF they implement these things well and IF this catches on, this could be the biggest contribution Wikileaks has made to the World. Those are big ifs and the devil is in the details, but one can be hopeful.

A wikileaks "type" site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013072)

It's called Fox News.

if this feels familiar (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013164)

let me spell it out: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

this is hysterical (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35013350)

Oh yes. Let me see if I understand this correctly. A major media outlet, the NY Times, wants to create a wikileaks type environment providing leakers a way to submit files to the newspaper. Does anyone honestly believe the NY Times, or any large newspaper for that matter, is free to report whatever it wants? Their handlers (CIA, etc) have them on a leash so tight that they are nothing more than a shadow of what they should have been. They are a joke. If anyone has anything really substantial to reveal, they would have more impact giving away copies in Grand Central Station during rush hour. The last place you should expect any kind of meaningful response is from the mainstream media...

Re:this is hysterical (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013702)

That's why when I want to uncover some Earth-shattering conspiracy, I send the information directly to the "New Frontiersman".

Brass tacks (1)

Art3x (973401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35013894)

Executive editor Bill Keller told The Cutline that he couldn't go into details, "especially since nothing is nailed down."

Gotta love the plain-jane speak that gets drilled into journalists. You'd never hear that from the stupid tech corporations. If it were Microsoft:

Vice president Bill Lumbergh told The Cutline that he couldn't go into details, "because we still are finalizing our enterprise solution implemention --- plus, it's patented."

Why not just implement OpenLeaks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35014718)

...instead of going through all the hassle (and security work) of setting up their own? Isn't this the exact reason OL is being created?

You mean THIS New York Times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35015810)

"They [the Rockefellers] control most of the important newspapers, magazines, and book publishing houses in the country, including the Curtis Publications, the Hearst Publications, Time, the New York Times, the Associated Press and many others." - J.L. Carmichael, The Elements of Economics

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our union and have respected their promises of discretion for almost four decades... it would not have been possible to develop our world project if we had been subjected to the full fire of publicity all these years. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and of world bankers is surely preferable to the self-determination which has been practiced for centuries past." - David Rockefeller, Germany, June 1991

Don't Hold Your Breath (3, Informative)

Voline (207517) | more than 3 years ago | (#35016106)

If the point to leaking documents is to get information to the public about wrongdoing by powerful institutions like governments and large corporations so that the public can do something about it, The New York Times is not where I'd send the information.

The Times had evidence of the Bush Administration program to illegally wiretap American Citizens but, at the urging of the White House, sat on the story [fair.org] for a year until after the 2004 elections before publishing. The public might have taken action to punish the perpetrators of this crime by voting them out of office. But the Times made sure that the powerful lawbreakers avoided any accountability [blogspot.com] for their crimes.

Go ahead and leak information about crimes to The New York Times. But if that information implicates powerful people or institutions in the US, don't expect them to publish until the criminals have safely gotten away with it.

Same NYT? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35016526)

Is this the same NYT that refused to print the climategate emails???

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Andrew Revkin, Environment Editor, New York Times Nov 20, 2009.

The New Role of WikiLeaks (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35016740)

As many have pointed out, the NYT would have to be extremely trusted, and also the government they operate their servers in (though to a lesser extent).

However, services like this, are very interesting.

Perhaps, the new role of WikiLeaks is to provide the anonymity services, and then immediately disseminate this information verbatim to the various news services. This could mean:

  • The news organizations would be put under the same competitive pressure.
  • The anonymity would be provided by WikiLeaks.
  • The news services would effectively fund WikiLeaks, by paying for premium accounts.
  • The news services could pay for filtering (so, they only get X type of news, or some other criteria).
  • The information is pushed to their own WikiLeaks services after WikiLeaks.
  • They can access all other posts through their own accounts.

Lastly, perhaps leaks that have been marked by the others, or WikiLeaks as "safe" can be released in the end anyway.

Embrace, Extend,Extinguish. (1)

jace_d (1955838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35016948)

It may have just struck them that there is an appetite for truth out there that wikileaks is busy feeding. They are in the prime position to embrace, extend, extinguish. In their extinguish phase,I suspect they'll begin turning on wikileaks and Julian Assange by scandalising, spreading doubt and making them out to be the enemy,and naturally the public will sing in chorus,forgetting all the truth wikileaks had revealed ,and embracing the old king as the real voice of truth. Disclaimer: this is my very pessimistic view.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...