NYT editor interview on Fresh Air regarding Wikileaks

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
This confirms what I've been saying, that Julian Assange has no regard for the lives of brown people on the other side of the world. The New York Times wanted to redact the name of our Afghan informants, but Assange believed there was no reason to protect them, because they were informants. Finally they convinced him that redacting the names would be good for PR, after the outcry over the lack of redacting of the previous leak.

Assange was also deeply offended that the NYT refused to link to his website because it contained unredacted names.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks


Everybody should listen to the whole interview, but here are some highlights

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller and a team of reporters from the paper worked with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for months before publishing hundreds of classified documents obtained by WikiLeaks late last year. In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Keller described how the Times' relationship with Assange began to deteriorate after the paper published several of the Afghanistan war logs provided by WikiLeaks.
On Tuesday's Fresh Air, Keller explains why the paper decided to publish the documents, the impact of those cables and why he came to regard Julian Assange as "elusive, manipulative and volatile.".

Keller tells Terry Gross that during an early conversation with representatives of The Guardian, Assange was told that both The Guardian and The New York Times wanted to edit out the names of ordinary Afghan citizens in classified military documents.

"Assange's reaction was, 'Well, they're informants. There's no reason for protecting them,' " Keller says. "But I think over time, he came around to the view that at least, from a public relations point of view, it was better to allow for a certain amount of editing out of things that could cost lives."
But after the Times published the cables, their relationship with Assange went from "wary to hostile." Assange was upset, Keller says, because the Times would not link to the WikiLeaks website, which did not redact the names of low-level informants.

"Obviously, there was no way we were going to prevent people from going to the WikiLeaks website to see the documents, but as a matter of principle, we said that when we published our stories about the Afghanistan documents, we were not going to link to their website," Keller says. "We feared that it could become hit-list material for the Taliban. [Assange] was deeply offended, not just that we had not linked to his website, but that we had made a point of not linking to his website. He thought we had shown disrespect."
Click to expand...
"Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has on several occasions talked about transparency as an absolute principle. I don't personally believe that. I think there are lots of areas where governments are entitled to keep secrets, and that includes diplomatic relations with allies and with adversaries — a certain amount of that does have to be kept confidential.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Be wary of accepting what one side says about the other, at face value.

The NY Times and Wikileaks may seem like allies over some cooperation on these documents - but recognize a few things.

The NY Times has a long history of covering up things for the government in stark contrast to Wikileaks' approach. (In one famous incident, a new President Kennedy told the NYT he wished they HAD publicized what they'd found about the plans for the Bay of Pigs, because they'd have prevented a disaster). Judith Miller and WMD, nuff said. And no, the Times never really has taken any responsibility for that yet.

The Times is very wary, it seems, of appearing to be in the same situation as Wikileaks - they both get confidential leaks and publish them - and so they are looking for ways to distance themselves. They have attacked Wikileaks before that I've seen as well. This fits that goal very well - the 'respectable' NY Times, and the 'different' Wikileaks. At least as a PR move.

The NY Times could hardly ignore the leaked documents - they needed to work with Wikileaks for a huge, and profitable, story. But that doesn't mean they can't try to have their cake and eat it too - getting the information from Wikileaks, and yet protecting their own interests at Wikileaks' expense attacking them.

The interview here has the editor saying Assange's position is that ANY leak is ok, there are no secrets - yet Assange just last week said exactly the opposite. In his 60 Minutes interview, IIRC, he said he thinks there are legitimate secrets for governments to have, like confidential sources.

If this editor wants to serve his own interests by demonizing Assange - you are at risk for falling for it, based on your commentary.

It SOUNDS very reasonable - to not link to Wikileaks if they expose sources more than the Times would like - but it would sound reasonable true or not.

Fact is, if Wikileaks held the views this editor says they hold, they could have put all the documents up for the public immediately. They did not and have been filtering.

Wikileaks does have a different leak agenda than the Times, for better or worse, but this may be more about the Times' interest than the merits of their approaches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom