[glesica]

Seems like a meaningless difference to me. You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism?

Wikileaks presented information, just because that information wasn't in a form that you are comfortable and familiar with doesn't make it not journalism.

No one had ever seen a journalist who published exclusively online until a few years ago and many people claimed that wasn't "journalism". Now bloggers are pretty well-recognized.

The volume of information is so large today that a new form of journalism is required. Wikileaks has provided that, or at least led the charge to provide it.

Wikileaks acted as a clearinghouse for raw information. Then others read it, interpreted it and wrote about it. I don't see the problem.

[magoon]

> You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism?

Um...yeah

[glesica]

But what's the difference? We're big kids, we can read the documents for ourselves. Or we can wait and let another news outlet read them and interpret them for us. I just don't see this as being a meaningful difference.