WikiLeaks spokesman wins Journalist of the Year in Iceland
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson Icelandic journalist and WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson won the country’s Journalist of the Year award for 2010, Iceland’s National Union of Journalists said. “Kristinn said when receiving the award that this was the third time he was getting an award for outstanding work in journalism, but that he had also been fired three times for his work,” NUJ official Frida Bjornsdottir said. The NUJ revealed its pick of Mr Hrafnsson, “for excellent processing of a video of a helicopter attack in Baghdad” and “for his work as a representative for WikiLeaks, an organization that has cooperated with many of the world’s major journalistic entities by publishing important information,” the NUJ said in a statement. WikiLeaks released in April last year a graphic video of a US military Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad in 2007 which killed two Reuters employees and a number of other people.
Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review
In the past week, both the Washington Post and the New York Times have referred to WikiLeaks.org, the web site that publishes confidential records, as a “whistleblower” site. This conforms to WikiLeaks’ own instructions to journalists that “WikiLeaks should be described, depending on context, as the ‘open government group’, ‘anti-corruption group’, ‘transparency group’ or ‘whistleblower’s site’.” But calling WikiLeaks a whistleblower site does not accurately reflect the character of the project. It also does not explain why others who are engaged in open government, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection activities are wary of WikiLeaks or disdainful of it. And it does not provide any clue why the Knight Foundation, the preeminent foundation funder of innovative First Amendment and free press initiatives, might have rejected WikiLeaks’ request for financial support, as it recently did. On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior.
"Disclosure's Effects: WikiLeaks and Tran" by Mark Fenster
Mark Fenster, University of Florida Abstract Constitutional, criminal, and administrative laws regulating government transparency, and the theories that support them, rest on the assumption that the disclosure of information has transformative effects: disclosure can inform, enlighten, and energize the public, or it can create great harm or stymie government operations. This article studies WikiLeaks in order to question and evaluate prevailing laws and theories of transparency that build on the assumption that disclosure’s effects are predictable, calculable, and capable of serving as the basis for adjudicating difficult cases. Suggested Citation Mark Fenster.
U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks
@frijoles: THANK YOU! You also forgot that not "every" Soldier has a secret clearance. @frijoles: it says " This page simply warns the user that the website they are about to view may contain classified documents and that such documents should not be VIEWED, downloaded, or distributed on NIPR computers. There is a button at the bottom of this warning page that then allows the user to go to the website." I have personally not read the leaks, I'm a US citizen and have never been outside of the country, and from what I hear, the leaks are mostly just dirty pollical stuff, nothing too serious, and nothing that could directly hurt any americans. What I am interested in, is the reaction that our government is taking, I pay taxes, over 20% of my income is taxed, like most americans, and I live in Seattle, Wa, sales tax here is 10%, so nearly 30% of whatever I earn in my entire life will go to the government. @frijoles: Xerox machine?!?
Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera
Wadah Khanfar, the director of Al Jazeera, announced his resignation today after Wikileaks released documents that could prove embarassing to the news organization, the New York Times has reported. According to the documents, Khanfar held particularly close ties with the U.S. government, to whom he promised the network would provide less critical coverage. He steps down today after running the network for eight years. The documents allege that Khanfar censored some of Al Jazeera's coverage of the conflict in Iraq under American pressure to sanitize its coverage, presumably to minimize anti-U.S. sentiment in the Arab world. The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which were allegedly removed by Khanfar. The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda. Historically, Al Jazeera has not been known for its reverence for the U.S. government.
by anamada Oct 5