(Image source: WBUR)
BY CHRISTINA HARTMAN
Watch multisource world news analysis from Newsy.com
Whistle-blower website WikiLeaks faces an ongoing criminal investigation and calls to be designated a terrorist organization after its latest document dump of more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables. Among the revelations -- corruption in the Afghan government, secret deals between General David Petraeus and the president of Yemen -- and embarrassing jokes about world leaders.
“U.S. government officials are beside themselves. They say the release could compromise relations with allies and even put lives in danger.” (CNN)
But as the leaks make front page news around the world -- some are pointing the finger at news organizations themselves -- who worked with the whistle-blower to publish classified information.
Five major news organizations had advance access to the documents -- The New York Times, the UK’s Guardian, Germany’s Der Speigel, France’s Le Monde and Spanish-language paper El Pais.
CNN reports it declined to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks and therefore didn’t get an advance look -- but the network invited editors from The Guardian and The New York Times on the air to explain their decisions to publish.
DAVID LEIGH, GUARDIAN: “We didn't do anything illegal. We didn’t leak this stuff.... We're a news organization. People come to us with this kind of material. When we get it, we look at it and say what’s in the public interest to make known?”
SCOTT SHANE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: “We have redacted and edited out -- some of the cables we're posting a lot of materials. The names of individuals who we think might be in danger from having spoken openly to U.S. diplomats in other countries. In some cases we've withheld entire cables...”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange defends his work as exposing official secrets the public needs to know. On Imus in the Morning - ABC’s Jake Tapper says the blame should fall on WikiLeaks -- not the media.
JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS: “There is a big difference between getting illegal leaks as WikiLeaks has allegedly done, and publishing them if you obtain the information legally as the New York Times has done. There is a significant difference.”
The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart says WikiLeaks would have posted the documents on its own website -- with or without the media’s help -- but suggests that doesn’t make publication right or worthwhile.
“For better or worse, this is the world we now live in. But living in it is one thing; celebrating it is another. … The latest WikiLeaks dump is ... fun, in a voyeuristic sort of way, revealing, but not about important things, and ultimately, more trouble than it is worth.”
And Politico points out an irony in the mounting coverage.
“Perversely, the sheer size of the dump — a mountain of gossip, intrigue, high-stakes policy and lowbrow humor — may ensure that some damaging revelations that might have been front-page stories if leaked one by one get lost in the shuffle.”
In a more than 10-minute analysis exploring the media’s role in publicizing WikiLeaks -- PBS asked the question -- “Where should journalists draw the line?” A public policy director from Harvard University suggests WikiLeaks is a reality the media and government officials just to figure out how to deal with.
ALEX JONES, Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University: “I think that, based on what they did this time, the material was handled well by The Guardian and well by The New York Times and I assume by Der Spiegel as well. But WikiLeaks' inclination to simply put raw information out, without any kind of effort to protect sources or to guard legitimate secrets, that's dangerous, as far as I'm concerned, although I'm not sure there is any real solution for it.”
We’ve also analyzed the leaks themselves and what impact they’re expected to have on U.S. diplomatic relations. To see that story, click here.
Get more video news analysis from Newsy.com
Transcript by Newsy
 |  |  |  |
