[elemenopy]

I disagree: I think there is a reasonable case to hold WikiLeaks and the NYT to different standards. I think WikiLeaks holds itself out as a much more anarchic news organisation than traditional outlets like the NYT. WikiLeaks isn't connected or have allegiance to any particular country, and will publish, let the facts speak for themselves and damn the establishment and any particular national interests that are harmed. On the other hand, organisations like the NYT are pretty open about how while they often publish against the wishes of USG they do ask for comment and may defer publication if they are satisfied there are very good reasons to do so. [1]

Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/public-editor/sullivan-les...

[belorn]

Wikileaks did that in the past and got hell for it, for the very reason that they were then a anarchic organisation that didn't curate and pick what they published. It is what got us the Afghan War documents and cable gate. In both cases Wikileaks was accused of putting "people lives at risk", through not that any case of death-caused-by-leak has ever been claimed by any US official. Only "at risk".

Going back further in time, there was actually a stated goal of Wikileaks. It wanted to make sure that leaking is so ubiquitous, common and supported that states can't afford to have deep secrets. Looking at the recent support of government leaking after the US election Wikileaks did gain large step towards that on both side of the political spectrum, be that intentional or not.

[oxide]

I agree.

Why is anyone holding a site meant for whistleblowing and leaking of confidential information and the website of a newspaper to the same standard?

Apples and oranges, IMO: It's not really fair to get mad at an orange for not giving you apple juice.

>Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT.

Well said. I don't get the partisanship from Wikileaks. What do they gain by picking sides? What is encouraging (or discouraging) Wikileaks to play cherry picker?

[sneak]

Well, there is that whole thing about their founder being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process. There are no MRI machines in that embassy.

[elemenopy]

> being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process

This is a mischaracterisation. If Assange wanted due process, he could leave the embassy and face the British (and then possibly Swedish) court systems. The only person choosing to arbitrarily detain Assange without due process is himself.

[sneak]

No. The entire Swedish thing is just trumped-up bullshit so that the US can extradite him on a currently sealed indictment, where he will then be tortured in prison as Manning was and is.

That's not due process.

[Natsu]

The problem with holding Wikileaks as "selective" is that you would have to establish that there are true leaks which they have withheld from us. There's this popular misconception that Wikileaks actually hacks to obtain the data, but this is false and no one has ever so much as attempted to prove otherwise.

So given that they can't select the sources, the claims of them being "selective" just sound ignorant to anyone who knows how they operate, especially when those same claims are so often repeated in publications which are openly selective.

[contrast]

First of all, if you know how Wikileaks operates, you know that as well as the leaks they generate content and opinions. They are not merely a funnel.

Second, if they were trying to be just a funnel but realised that they were only getting information from limited sources with a known agenda, then they would also know that they are facilitating a political agenda. They could be open about this. But they are not. They are keeping critical details of their own activities secret (ie they choose to be selective), which is directly contrary to their stated philosophy.

In a more empirical sense, an organisation can only be judged by its output, not by its slogans or cheerleaders. In that sense Wikileaks is clearly an organisation promoting a political agenda.

[Natsu]

> First of all, if you know how Wikileaks operates, you know that as well as the leaks they generate content and opinions. They are not merely a funnel.

Yes, but that opinion is that powerful, unaccountable organizations shouldn't be able to keep deep secrets from the general public when they do things like manufacturing consent for war.

[sneak]

Just because they seem to be doesn't mean that that is their intent.

Being open about sources defeats the whole purpose.

[ethbro]

How would we tell the difference between a selective Wikileaks and a publish-everything Wikileaks?

[Natsu]

If true leaks came out by other means with proof they were rejected by Wikileaks after being offered with validation.