Why there MIGHT always be reporters, Part 1
It’s not that crowdsourcing news doesn’t have its benefits. Before it released its Afghan War Diary, however, Wikileaks first shoveled the unfiltered secret documents to three mainstream media — The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Was it because the three papers have a reputation for leaning to the left and might, therefore, use the leaks to bash the war effort? Maybe, though I hardly think opponents of the war need much help in that regard.
A more plausible explanation is that Wikileaks went to the MSM because that’s where the reporters are. The ones who, by and large, make a living out of gathering, processing and synthesizing lots of information.
I hope the owner of Wikileaks is happy, he can now be directly accountable for most likely 50 or so murders as a results of his do-gooder bullshit.
1Pretty fucked that they are therefore excited to leak information that they did not properly filter important info for instance this. Terribly unhappy for the deaths that will result.
2Hey, Sharp. While you’re a bit off-thread, you do raise an interesting point.
You remind me of another difference between data-pornographers (such as Wikileaks) and the MSM: Reporters safeguard the names of their sources. Instead of putting the lives of sources in danger by outing them — as Wikileaks did — the typical reporter would rather go to jail.
Anyway, thanks for the comments.
3Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article
4