Is This the Future of Journalism?

Why Wikileaks matters.

BY JONATHAN STRAY | APRIL 7, 2010

Assange describes Wikileaks as pioneering a revolutionary model for bringing previously hidden material to light. "The mainstream press is, per capita, not competitive with Wikileaks in terms of sourcing," he says.

The diffuse, international nature of the organization has protected Wikileaks from the fate of other organizations that seek to expose wrongdoing by powerful interests. It prints no paper, but instead stores its articles online in Sweden, where journalists are required by law not to reveal sources. Its domain name, wikileaks.org, is registered in California, where the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation intervened when an aggrieved Swiss bank tried shut the site down.

Still, some are skeptical of using Wikileaks as a blueprint for a new, hard-hitting form of journalism. "What happened is obviously not right," says Martinez, who estimates that he watched real-time video from about 50 Apache engagements during his two tours in Iraq. However, he takes issue with Wikileaks' presentation of the events, claiming that the footage definitely shows at least one man loitering with an RPG and another with an AK-47 -- though he notes that carrying an AK-47 in the street was hardly unusual in Baghdad during the summer of 2007.

Neither weapon is highlighted in the Wikileaks video. "These two guys, they look pretty armed to me," he says. "That's completely ignored."

Yet, we wouldn't be seeing the guns at all if not for a sustained campaign by Wikileaks. At its best, the rise of Wikileaks represents the type of accountability journalism made famous in the 1970s by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, and practiced today by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker and Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the New York Times -- and Seymour Hersh in both eras.

Wikileaks, however, makes no bones about its desire to advance a political message, promising sources that their material will be used for "maximal political impact."  Assange says that he hopes Wikileaks' work on this case will lead to "world-wide attention to the issue, and hopefully a renewed investigation into those events, and a change in government policy."

Assange writes initial analyses and stories from leaked material himself, and there's often a Noam Chomsky-esque critique of America in his work. It's clear he distrusts big corporations and governments. He has more reason to do so than most, having lived and worked in Kenya, where he has helped to expose hundreds of government-sponsored extrajudicial assassinations. Two of his colleagues were killed in March 2009, in an attack some have linked to the Kenyan police.

Wikileaks' editors are definitely outspoken, but they can't quite be accused of partisanship. They released the evidence of toxic waste dumping, which The Guardian had been barred from running, but also posted the so-called "climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, mere weeks before the Copenhagen talks. They've also leaked the confidential creditor list of collapsed Icelandic Bank Kaupthing, Australia's secret blacklist of censored URLs, and more than 500,000 pager messages from New York City on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Despite these public-interest successes, Wikileaks' disregard for gag orders and their unabashed advocacy makes full-throated praise for the organization rare. Yet no journalist I've spoken to will speak ill of Wikileaks in private: Every reporter understands that Wikileaks is the thin end of the wedge. If they can't run a dangerous story, no one can.

 SUBJECTS: IRAQ, MEDIA
 

Jonathan Stray was a senior computer scientist at Adobe Systems and is now a freelance journalist based in Hong Kong.

RBB

1:56 AM ET

April 7, 2010

This is overblown

The Apaches were there because a US patrol was in contact a block away -- which is what the Reuters stringers had showed up to photograph. Their camera had pictures of the HMMWVs, taken from the corner when they were engaged. The were talking with the JAM fighters who were clearly armed -- and who were directing them to where the Americans were.

It was only normal to carry around an AK-47, PK, or RPG in Baghdad in 2007 is you were an insurgent.

Reuters made a stink of this then, and they were fully briefed and shown the video -- and they stopped making an issue of it when the clear presence of heavily armed JAM fighters was made evident.

So the "issue" is basically the attitude of the pilots on the soundtrack -- guess what -- Soldiers get callous and display gallows humor when they fight every day. It is a coping mechanism.

 

AWESOME

12:42 PM ET

April 7, 2010

15-6

The military has already done a 15-6 investigation and found no wrongdoing on anyones part. A redacted copy was given to Reuters.

 

SQUEEDLE

12:45 PM ET

April 7, 2010

No, it isn't

You sound like you have military experience. If so you know full well that armed conflict cannot possibly avoid killing innocents. Mistakes - lethal mistakes - are inevitable. Given that, when the military screws up, it needs to own up to those mistakes and make reparations. The least that could have been done was give some money to the families of the survivors and pay for the injured's medical bills.

There were lots of mistakes here, and they were compounded by the added insult of the US refusing to help those it wrongly harmed. These lethal mistakes cause a lot of anger, understandably, but the US would be in a much better position if we took better care to avoid mistakes up front, and WHEN they happen anyway, to do as much as is reasonable to make up for it.

You are also whitewashing their laughing about the body count. It's not "gallows humor," it's pure lack of empathy, which, yes, is a coping mechanism, but mere "gallows humor" is not enough to allow you to gun down children from a helicopter without remorse. These guys have completely dehumanized the people on the ground. They are regarding those people as little better than ants. This is why it's so important for people to see this video - people need to understand what war does to the human beings who participate in it. Eventually those men and women have to come back to the US, having been traumatized, and/or conditioned themselves to accept violence and killing as a normal thing. We as a country need to ask ourselves whether these so-called "American interests" in Iraq and Afghanistan are really worth the human, social and political cost. Do we really want a society full of trained, conditioned, hardened killers? Get yourself to a "war zone" in the inner city areas of Los Angeles, New York, and D.C. and answer that question for me. Is that the America you want to live in?

If there were a no-exceptions draft, and every American parent had to worry whether their son or daughter might die in armed conflict, I am quite certain we wouldn't be blowing this kind of money and human life on these two wars.

 

SALAM

4:37 PM ET

April 7, 2010

The 'mistake' pretext

Okay, let's consider this a 'mistake': were the repeated killings of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan mistakes? I do not think so. It's obvious too many American 'heroes' are psychos who indulge in shooting innocent Muslims and others, and label it as 'mistake'. What happened to the Hadita massacre's culprits, American soldiers who raped an Iraqi teenage and burned her family alive? Nothing. Maybe he is sunbathing in Texas!

The whole thing of invasion is a savage act. No one can hide the truth.

Wasn't Bush who ordered a new Crussade?

 

THEGOODSKEPTIC

2:40 AM ET

April 8, 2010

WRONG

You can say whatever you like about the overall mission, but where it falls over is the point where they knowingly shot at unarmed wounded and the civilians rescuing them.

No. Excuse.

 

JULIEN

3:58 AM ET

April 8, 2010

Just from what i see

Military guys will have their justification, this is normal however here a wrong assessment of the situation has been done. Of course we see arms carried by some individuals, we also see some cameras carried by 2 individuals. That situation should have been assessed correctly and then possible solutions taken. Solution one, the "NICE" one (sorry guy, u called it that way, we fire everyone (that's clearly what happened). Solution 2, we fire individually, focusing on individuals with arms, we possibly miss some individuals who can potentially run away but the 2 reuters are possibly safe and the van doesn't show up. Solution 3 we rely on land guys + vehicles, the helicopter follow and shape the intervention but engage fire only if it is necessary.
When u are in the situation, it is difficult to take proper solution but what these soldiers should be blamed for is an inaccurate assessment of the situation. They had over 1 minute to assess it, this should be enough. Are they sufficiently trained ?

 

ADR1NY

12:53 PM ET

April 14, 2010

yes...

yes there are some in the military (of any nation) who are bad people. But by and large they are simply normal people who are asked to do a difficult job under difficult circumstances.
So Salam I must ask who is worse? People that make mistakes or people who go out of thier way to target innocent people? You the same people who commit suicide bombings, or brought down the WTC?

 

ADR1NY

12:58 PM ET

April 14, 2010

JULIEN....

Listen life in a combat zone isn't like what you see in movies or on video games. 1 minute is simply not a lot of time to do a full assessment. Not when your heart is beating and the adrenaline is pumping. The pilots focus is on saving american servicemens lives.
Now I know you watched the video and came up with the count in a minute or so.....try doing it with a real life on the line

 

LAL QILA

7:20 AM ET

April 7, 2010

Justice delayed is justice denied

Justice delayed for the innocents massacred is justice denied.

Why don't we hear cries of war criminals from the ordinarily haughty Americans?

 

BLACKSHYLD

9:05 AM ET

April 7, 2010

Did you actually watch the video?

I just did and considering they believed they were facing enemy insurgents of course they aren't going to have sympathy for them so of course the behavior will seem callous with dark humor but what exactly do you expect? The cameras did look like weapons and it was in a combat zone during combat operations, so again what do you expect? The pilots followed procedure, they waited to fire until they received permission to.

No war crimes in this incident, just a tragic case of mistaken identity. Unfortunately in the fog of war that happens more than we like to admit, even in this day and age of advanced smart weapons and sharper images the weapons are still not smart enough and the cameras aren't sharp enough to stave off such events.

So put down your torches and pitchforks and step off your high horse.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

10:58 AM ET

April 7, 2010

Perhaps it is you who needs

Perhaps it is you who needs to stop preaching. While there is a chance you may be right, if we dont have empathy for other human beings, our societal values will fall apart quickly. Surely you can admit it is tragic for the children to be seriously injured thanks to US tax dollars.

 

AWESOME

12:47 PM ET

April 7, 2010

...

Because they aren't war criminals just soldiers doing their job. It's not a pretty job and one that you obviously revile. But the facts are unchanged. The pilots were justified in their actions according to the Law of Land Warfare and the ROE. The Infantry soldiers who arrived just after found the Ak-47's, RPG's, and yes the reporters cameras. It's unfortunate that they were killed but its their own fault. The same with the two children - unfortunate and regrettable.

 

RBB

11:26 AM ET

April 7, 2010

Presence of weapons not debatable

Wikileaks is dissimulating. That the Apaches were responding to a US patrol in contact is established fact. The presence of RPGs and AKs is incontrovertible -- it is clear on the video unless you are being intentionally obtuse. Whats more, the patrol that investigated the strike recovered the said weapons, in addition to the camera -- and this evidence was presented to Reuters in 2007.

You can certainly question the call to subsequently attack the van, but that does not make it a violation of ROE -- much less a war crime. It is easy to second guess battlefield decisions from a position of leisure, with complete detachment and a lack of context. But lets not give Wikileaks more credit than they deserve -- this is effectively a dishonest publicity stunt designed to pimp their business.

 

THOM

11:35 AM ET

April 7, 2010

videos of war

When you expose the robotic coldness of war via the candidness of a military recording, people will doubt their need of it.

Why was this and like material censored at all? Some say to protect and maintain the inner workings of our armed forces, but I believe that if the voting public were to witness events like this daily, their appetite for war would curb even greater than it already has.

Politicians and military leaders believe it nearly impossible to wage effective war with the current media coverage, imagine if they Wikileak'd the entire war.

At every level, discover again your humanity and understand the plight of war.

To be clear, it wasn't the soldiers that left me feeling ill, but the blind protocol, the inability to effectively identify the targets as hostile before firing, and certainly the injured children denied by superiors the most effective medical care.

Our soldiers are heros thrown into hell and forgotten. It's not them that should be blamed, but all of us for allowing this to continue.

 

CHRIS C.

12:28 PM ET

April 7, 2010

The Future of Journalism?

If by the future of journalism you mean posting something sensational that adheres to your own agenda or perspective while not doing your job and at least attempting to provide a complete perspective of the story, then this is nothing new. There are very few journalists out there who will now write a story that attempts to be unbiased. This goes for all political viewpoints. I usually have to read 2 or 3 different articles on the same subject in order to weed through the garbage that is now considered reporting.

 

DISSECTED NEWS

9:21 AM ET

April 8, 2010

journalism, or activism

There are a few things that struck me about the Wikileaks story. First of all, Wikileaks has long been a leader in getting out the news that somebody wanted to keep quiet, and I have great respect for their efforts, but their coverage of this story is clearly not objective journalism. I've watched the videos, as has one of my analysts who is an Iraq war vet, and there is lots of room for interpretation and debate about how justified the pilots were in shooting.

The second thing that struck me, however, is that the power of new media is almost unstoppable, which should influence the way politicians, governments, and corporations do business. Nothing is hidden anymore, and "cover-up" is almost the worst thing you could be accused of. If the military had disclosed this footage they could have controlled the message. They didn't disclose, and Wikileaks has controlled the message.

Unfortunately, the message is wrong. This should be a cautionary tale about the horror of war, the dangers of collateral damage in any combat zone, especially with an airborne strike in an urban environment, and the Bush administrations censorship of anything that could make them look bad (they didn't do a very good job, though, did they?). Instead, the message is anti-soldier, biased, and muddled.

Read an Iraq war vet's analysis on Dissected News:

http://www.dissectednews.com/2010/04/wikileaks-monday-morning-quarterbacking.html

 

AWESOME

9:43 AM ET

April 8, 2010

A Psychologist's perspective

This is for those of you who have never served, never heard the sound of a weapon being fired in anger, and take for granted the job the military does in providing you with the freedom to denigrate them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?hpw

You might also want to take a look at the 48 minute version of the video and not the 17 minute propaganda piece wikileaks put together to raise funds for its failing business.

 

LAL QILA

2:47 PM ET

April 8, 2010

This video, Bagram and Abu Gharib

This video is not the only one there are countless thousands of others which capture and encapsulate war crimes of the American soldiers. Just search for similar American messages of hate at Youtube or LiveLeak, search for keywords like Bagram and Abu Gharib where countless war crimes were committed by American soldiers.

Videos like these are the very reason that nobody trusts the American spin on any subject any more.

It is high time for Americans to change course and re-join the human race and stop committing war crimes upon war crimes and then blatantly try to provide justifications.

It would be best for Americans to also bring their special friends, the Israelis, to re-join the human race too, as this would reduce the threat to American lives, the world over, by at least 90%. Yes, Israel in its present ugly racist form is a liablity and not an asset for Americans by any definition of the word.

 

AWESOME

8:48 PM ET

April 8, 2010

Blah, blah, blah

Thousands? Unlikely. But your point is made. Has America made mistakes? Yes. This incident however is not one of them. However, if you want to talk about unprovoked attacks let's talk about the one where Islamic fundamentalists are crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing innocent civilians. Let's talk about the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the American embassies in Africa, the first attack on the WTC, the attack on the US embassy in Lebanon, the Lockerbie bombings, the Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia, and countless others. But these are probably all justified because of American imperialism, right?

The notion that American actions are to blame is fiction. If America did a complete turnaround today we would still have enemies. You hate us not for what we've done but for who we are and what we stand for. Guess what? That isn't going to change. Not today and not anytime in the future. That is the true narrative that is written for all to see.

America will change course when peaceful Muslims finally stand up to radical Islam. When the socialists of Europe find a backbone.

So spare me your inane platitudes about re-joining the human race. America is doing what every country has done since civilization started - protecting its citizens and interests.

 

RBB

3:22 AM ET

April 9, 2010

Google some images from the Baghdad Morgue...

and the internecine Iraqi murders in 2006-2007 and then try and argue that Abu Ghraib and incidents like this are what the violence in Iraq is really about.

JAM murdered (in cold blood) more Iraqis in 2006 that the US killed during the entire war. That doesn't compare to your alleged "war zone" in LA or any other city. And war doesn't make 18 year old gangland rappers shoot eachother, so what is your point? That violence begets violence? How trite.

And to Squeedle, you can climb from the high horse and save the lecture on the impact of war on the US Soldier's psyche -- I've got the T-shirt, thanks (several of them.)

The Army does "own up" to its mistakes -- but this wasn't one of them. US Soldiers treated and evacuated the wounded -- either insurgent or not. That is what the law of war requires. The Army doesn't owe restitution to the photog's family -- but maybe Reuters does for putting them in harms way, embedded with JAM fighters.

How do you know the remorse those pilots may or may not feel? You don't have a clue -- but are casting judgement based off their comments seconds afterward -- and before they know there are even kids there.

The pilots are flying a combat mission -- and people are trying to kill them on a daily basis. And they are trying to kill them. Do you expect a conflicted Hamlet soliloquy as they contemplate killing people prior to pulling the trigger?

Finally, we still used to have wars when there was a draft. What makes you think today is any different?

 

ROOSTERCHIEF

12:06 AM ET

April 13, 2010

I would like to see your

I would like to see your sources for the information you give. You say that Jaysh al Mahdi killed more Iraqis in one year than all six years combined of American operations. This is a bold claim, given the chaos in Iraq at the time.

Whether or not the US military took the injured to a hospital is irrelevant. Getting something partially correct is still not getting it correct. While Reuters may have some explaining to do, the US military has some to do as well. If everything was done correctly, why not let Reuters see for themselves? The video doesn't compromise national defense or foreign policy, doesn't reveal information on intelligence gathering techniques, contains no personal information, and finally contains no trade secrets. So what would be the harm in releasing the video and explaining the the situation?

One of the pilots does mention the kids, saying something along the lines of "Well, they shouldn't have been brought." The other pilot agrees. Certainly no remorse.

 

AWESOME

11:36 AM ET

April 13, 2010

The video was shown to Reuters

The video and evidence from the attack site was show to Reuters. Here is a quote from the NY Times:

"Video of the incident from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in an off-the-record briefing in Baghdad on July 25, 2007.

U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day.

Turner said the military had released documents to Reuters last year in response to the FOIA request showing the presence of weapons on the scene, including AK-47 rifles and an RPG 7 grenade launcher."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/05/world/international-uk-iraq-usa-journalists.html?_r=1

 

AWESOME

11:38 AM ET

April 13, 2010

Oh, and by the way...

SECDEF backs pilots.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63A11I20100411

 

JUMABAY JOROBAEV

7:46 PM ET

April 14, 2010

Feature of Journalism

This is not only the mistake, this is over all, how the dumb soldiers can kill the children? Everything is seen clear, this is not apologetic, no excuse. Major Brent Cummings' definition is not sufficient. Human, human, human.....