|
I received an inquiry from a reporter asking my opinion, as a Wikileaks "supporter," about the security breach which resulted in the unintentional release of unedited US embassy cables. In keeping with my no interviews policy, here's the full text of my email response. Thanks for getting in touch. I have only been aware of this peripherally, as I'm sure you're aware we've been planning for a hurricane here in NY for the last few days while this other storm has been brewing. First, I'm glad you're looking into it. I don't have enough information to fully answer your questions. I also don't think of myself as a Wikileaks supporter.
Would I prefer that reporters protect their sources? In general, yes, of course. I have myself been betrayed by reporters who I spoke to in confidence. So I don't think this is major news nor does it draw a distinction between Wikileaks and reporters. What's new is the massive scale of leaking that can take place now. Would it have been better if they were more responsible about it? Yes. Could this also have happened at Spiegel, the Times, the Guardian? Yes! Of course. People who earn their living as journalists should bend over backwards to be fair to people who play a journalistic role without being paid for it. The same way a professional golfer would be careful when criticizing an amateur. There's an inherent conflict of interest here. To see the professionals flaunt their conflict so openly is disconcerting. Makes me question their professionalism. That's the extent to which I support Wikileaks. I'm cc'ing my NYU colleagues on this email. |
 |
I have defended Wikileaks against the childishness of American journalists, esp Bill Keller of the NY Times, who have brought completely irrelevant issues into the discussion -- highlighting their problem -- that it's difficult if not impossible to draw a meaningful distinction that separates them from Wikileaks. So Assange has dirty socks. I don't like the Bill Keller's suits. Neither of these are 