Posts Tagged: wikileaks

1. Does putting your cell phone number on Facebook help improve your chances of getting a job? Or does it lead to privacy invasion?

I do not think that putting your cell phone number on Facebook will help you to get a job. I guess it would depend on what field you were looking for a job in. Being in interactive media, I think that recruiters would find it strange if an interactive media person put their number on Facebook, since we should know better than to put private information on a social media site. I also do not think that recruiters check Facebook for personal information like phone numbers, email, etc. I, personally, think that putting my cell phone number on Facebook is a privacy concern. Even though my profile is set to private, I am always afraid that people can view my private information.

2. Will Facebook soon have the web catting feature like gmail and skype have? Will this allow for more privacy invasion and stalking?

I think that it is only a matter of time before Facebook has the web chatting feature. This is scary to me, considering that the majority of computers today are built with web cams. I think that this will further develop privacy issues within the social media realm, especially when it comes to children. I think that a lot of children do not understand the idea of privacy and how much information they should and should not put on the web. Having a webcam accessible to them is a scary thought.

3. Will WikiLeaks eventually result in the release of consumers’ private information?

Wikileaks is an interesting and intriguing site. I think that their purpose is to better the public good and not to damage the public with the spreading of their information. Wikileaks’ goal is to do things that will help culture as a whole and punish those who are damaging our culture and the people in it.

Communication majors may remember studying a case involving the “Pentagon Papers” in a media history class. Basically, back in 1971, the New York Times got their hands on the aforementioned papers that detail classified information about the war effort in Vietnam. They wanted to publish the info, the President objected, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in The New York Times v. United States. The Court found 6-3 that the government failed to demonstrate burden of proof required for a prior restraint injunction. First Amendment win. The papers remain classified to this day.

Hmmm… Sounds familiar right? Does the American public have a right to know so-called “government secrets”? Does the American press have a right to access such information? The Pentagon Papers are an interesting pre-digital precedent to the recent WikiLeaks scandals. It was this historical background that made the story regarding the New York Times and Wikileaks so fascinating to me.

In their coverage of WikiLeaks, BBC, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Politico all explored how the the United States apparently ignored detainee abuse. The New York Times basically said “but these Iraqi guys were worse!” In forty years, the Times seemingly went from trail-blazer to truth-spinner.

Obviously, editors change over the years, so the philosophy behind a newspaper can change drastically as well. But something clearly changed regarding the culture of the paper, and their interpretation of the first amendment. When the issue involves such a clear reprehensible morality of the American government, citizens deserve to know the facts. While they can find these facts in the aforementioned papers, none of those papers carry the same homegrown credibility that the Times uniquely posesses.

To understand this discrepancy, maybe the American culture offers some insight. In 1971, citizens had no global digital network through which to share information. In attempting to publish the Pentagon Papers, the Times would have broken the story and offered citizens information they could find nowhere else. Sales would go through the roof.

In 2010, the document itself can be downloaded through a clicks. Everyone has the same access and the flow of information is more flat. All of this at a time when traditional newspapers are facing a slow demise. The Times are probably hold on to what over goodwill with government sources they have left. Instead of breaking the story, the Times attempted to not let the story break them.

As Greenwald explains: “serving the Government’s interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That’s their role. That’s what makes them the ‘establishment media’.” What new media like Wikilinks offer is a system of media not tied to any traditional form of reputation or connection. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But in our political culture, don’t media outlets need some type of consistent source? These torture memos are a big find, but how likely will Wikilinks get another source like that again, especially after this scandal? At least the Times still gets invited to the White House press conferences.

I enjoyed learning more about WikiLeaks this week. It has always been a site that I have heard about in the news and in my media law classes. It always seemed like some shadowy organization that puts on the face of a group of freedom fighters. They mysteriously would come up with classified documents from anonymous sources and post them for the world to see with little fear of the consequences. They had done some great things and some very bad things depending on how people felt about each issue. As we mentioned in class, I think the thing that bothered me most about WikiLeaks is the fact that a site that touts the banner of transparency is also a site that acts very secretive about its sources and the way it works as a whole.

It was interesting to discuss such a polarizing organization more in-depth and learn more about what the people behind it do. I liked to see the face of the WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, on the TED talk video and hear his description of the work that his group performs. Although he still came off as a slightly creepy troublemaker, it was good to put a human face on the WikiLeaks organization and hear what he had to say.

I am in favor of the idea of transparency and believe that our government does not share nearly enough with us that I believe we have the right to know. However, I was pleasantly surprised a while back when Wikileaks released the Afghanistan War Logs. I read that most of the major details of the war logs had actually been shared with the public. The things that had been kept secret were not exactly earth-shattering but they still were important, such as the fact that the insurgents had access to more powerful anti-aircraft weapons.

Although the American government has a ways to go in terms of transparency, I think that Wikileaks has, and will continue to have, a larger rule with transparency in other countries such as when they leaked information about the corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader.

As much as I sometimes disagree with the information that WikiLeaks posts online, I have to admit that it was refreshing to hear Assange talk more about the process that his people go through to make sure that the documents that they receive are legitimate and come from a reliable source. Even when they have a good feeling about a story, but are not absolutely sure, they make sure to add a disclaimer. It is this attention to the process that I have to respect and it makes WikiLeaks seem less like a rumor-mill and more like a legitimate news source that can be (mostly) trusted. Though their methods may be questionable, they are leading the cahrge to a new era in which transparency is more widespread and “the people are watching Big Brother.”

This week’s discussion on wikis really got me thinking. As someone who wasn’t all thatfamiliar with this form of communication, watching the video in today’s class helped demonstrate the importance of this “informal reporting.”

I think what I was most impressed with when it came to WikiLeaks – it is not just simply churning out information once it’s received, but in fact most of the time it’s fact-checked and served up as a credible source to the masses. Even when the documents or leaks haven’t been verified, I appreciate that WikiLeaks makes the effort to be as transparent as possible and let readers know this. To me, even if the leaks turn out to be fake, at least audiences went into the situation with a real frame of reference. Additionally, by being truthful about sources and documents, WikiLeaks is able to build a reader following and develop the all important reader trust.

WikiLeaks are another interesting source when it comes to distributing news…based on today’s video I feel like they fall somewhere between traditional news outlets and citizen journalism. This is just another example of how the news industry is constantly evolving based on new technologies. The introduction of the Internet has made it possible for everyone and anyone to post “news” online. The difference between WikiLeaks and the average citizen journalist is that it would seem that WikiLeaks tends to be a more trusted “news” source and that they incorporate standard journalism practices into their news distribution. Additionally, WikiLeaks (much like traditional journalism outlets) protect their sources and by doing so are privileged to exclusive information that other outlets (who may not be able to protect sources) are not.

However, after finding out all of this information I was surprised to find out that there wasn’t enough funding for this project to continue (at first). I think that WikiLeaks offers a lot of valuable information and is genuinely interested in serving the public good, so it was a shame that the site didn’t have the funding or support to continue without taking a hiatus. It would seem that this site is a great virtual example of the fourth estate and watchdog journalism. After all of the complaining going on about the news industry (both traditional and new media), it’s interesting that when we do have a medium trying to look out for the public that they aren’t backed and supported by a larger population.

Overall, I think that WikiLeaks are a great addition to the news industry and in helping gather and distribute investigative journalism stories. I’d like to see more of this kind of reporting and verifying of information. I also appreciate that this forum exists to help break these kinds of stories and I hope that it continues to serve the public good and bring important issues to the forefront of society’s mind.

The question I had asked previously were:

1. By surreptitiously publishing stories on Illegal activities, does the investigative reporter violate privacy, regardless of the content?

2. By airing graphic content involving the deaths of individuals, does the reporter violate the dignity of the victim and their families?

3. How do we toe the line between getting the truth out and respecting those that are aggrieved?

Almost 40 years ago, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon papers detailing Nixon’s expanding war in Vietnam by revealing targeting data in Laos and Cambodia. To many, Ellsberg was a hero, standing up to a corrupt administration that sanctified the invasion of additional countries in a seemingly unwinnable war. Today the situation is strikingly similar. Julian Assange, director of the secretive Wikileaks digital activist site has leaked numerous reports on the conduct of the current “War on Terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The information given by the site is informative and highly relevant to the digital format of participatory democracy. The site does inspire several objection from me. What I must say is that while the freedom of the press is fundamental to a functional society, the manner which the information is presented today and the public’s reaction is most disturbing.

The most controversial video Assange’s group has released is the gun camera footage of an American Apache gunship firing upon and killing a crowd of eighteen civilians including two Reuters journalists. Despite the horrific losses and damage inflicted upon the helicopter’s ground unit in the days before, the conduct of the pilots and gunners was both unbecoming and inhumane of uniformed personnel. Yet, while this footage is being aired over the web the fact that the victim’s families and their dignity are never taken into consideration. This horrifies me. Today I viewed this footage on, of all things, a talk show-esque seminar with Assange personally attending. The fact that this file was shown on such a platform instead of a more solemn environment is a testament to how society views death from a world away.

I personally would not have shown this in a theater and have had a celebrity crow about his accomplishment. I would have sought the approval of the aggrieved families first, as the images of their loved ones would be viewed by masses of anonymous strangers. Pending approval I would have ushered the crowd in a bare area, shown the footage with an explicit message of victim support and ushered the crowd out, leaving the viewers to form their own questions. We must always understand that while truth and integrity are virtues that we can all abide by, we must never forget those that have suffered and died in incidents such as this. To be a true reporter we must respect each others common humanity instead of viewing death as an offensive abstract.

The question I have for this week are:

1. By surreptitiously publishing stories on Illegal activities, does the investigative reporter violate privacy, regardless of the content?

2. By airing graphic content involving the deaths of individuals, does the reporter violate the dignity of the victim and their families?

3. How do we toe the line between getting the truth out and respecting those that are aggrieved?

My view of WikiLeaks has changed.  Before, I thought it was a sketchy site that was only interested in digging up controversy and saw Julian Assange, the face of WikiLeaks, as a dangerous trouble maker.  I was unclear about their sources and how they acquired the information that has put the spotlight on this site in recently.  Basically, I saw WikiLeaks as a site that was trying to take down journalism.

Clearly, WikiLeaks is a whistle blowing site.  But isn’t that what the purpose of the Internet was intended for?  Although it is a complex phenomenon, WikiLeaks represents the evolution of the Internet and journalism.  It has become a platform that citizens are comfortable using to spread global issues and concerns while protecting themselves and remaining anonymous.  Journalism as an institute has come under fire in terms of trustworthiness in recent years and WikiLeaks is the global community response.  It is the modern day example of a true “free press”

WikiLeaks gives me the sense that we now have the power to watch “big brother” instead of the other way around.  Thanks to technology, people are gaining more of an individual voice and have media platforms that suit their needs to get their message out.  Never before have ordinary citizens had the opportunity to change the world in such a dynamic way.  It has given power to the people that was normally reserved for media agenda setters.  A topic may not be deemed newsworthy by a team of journalists, but they will sooner or later pick up on the story if there is enough buzz in the global digital community.

So will WikiLeaks take the place of journalism?  I think not.  A site like WikiLeaks can’t solve all of the world’s problems or cover everything that may need special attention.  That’s why we have investigative reporters.  Journalism can adopt some of the techniques and tricks that WikiLeaks has pioneered in relation to digital information gathering.  However, if journalism wants to compete they need to get on the bandwagon quickly and not let this opportunity pass them by yet again.  Journalism can survive if it embraces the new digital culture of the new millennium.

Where as I thought WikiLeaks was scum only a few days ago, now I have respect for the site and it’s mission.  This proves that we need to better understand our evolving surroundings and advancing tools to better serve our communities.  WikiLeaks took this step and created controversy along the way.  But we have to keep in mind that times are changing and radical ideas are bound to shake our everyday lives simply because they’re different than what we’re used to from the past.  We may not agree with them at first because it alters our view of what is deemed correct.  As we evolve our technology and information outlets, we need to evolve our minds and societies as a direct correlation.  Otherwise we will never see progress.

1. Does putting your cell phone number on Facebook help imrpove your chances of getting a job? Or does it lead to privacy invasion?

2. Will Facebook soon have the web catting feature like gmail and skype have? Will this allow for more privacy invasion and stalking?

3. Will WikiLeaks eventually result in the release of consumers’ private information?

1. When I take a picture of my younger cousins (11, 10, and 8), they instantly demand to see the picture as soon as I take. They have done this since they were toddlers, because to them, cameras have always been digital and come with an instant preview screen. When I was younger, on the other hand, you had 24 (or 36) pictures and that was it. You couldn’t delete, you couldn’t preview- you had to wait until the film came back developed a few days to a week later. How is this instant gratification reflected in social networking sites/ public lives? How has an overload of instant images changed our perceptions?

2. By 2010, have we as SNS users realized the need to control privacy settings? Have we accepted the public nature of SNS sites in general and adjusted our comments accordingly? Have we accepted that if something we post gets out in a negative way, there is nothing we can do about it?

3. The big stink about Wikileaks in the news lately is that the documents it has released about the Iraqi War could create safety issues for the United States and do harm toward the US Military’s agenda. The release of the Pentagon Papers had similar protests (that it would harm the government’s efforts in Vietnam) but the papers were leaked and everything was okay (except for the realization that the government had been lying enormously about Vietnam). Are Wikileaks causing the same type of momentum today? Or do people not even care that they are being lied to?