Mainstream Media Calls For Indictment Of Assange, For Competing With Them

3087568318_87df10fa6aPartial Objects notes the rank hypocrisy as the Wall Street Journal unveils “Safe House”, its new WikiLeaks-lite website. (Whistle-blowers, submit your juicy classified documents and emails!) Of course, the WSJ may report tipsters to law enforcement and “third parties”:

The WSJ calls for Assange to be indicted, elaborating on the difference between him and regular media (they use the NYT as their counterexample).

Yet the WSJ also announces the start of their new site, Safe House:

Documents and databases: They’re key to modern journalism. But they’re almost always hidden behind locked doors, especially when they detail wrongdoing such as fraud, abuse, pollution, insider trading, and other harms. That’s why we need your help. If you have newsworthy contracts, correspondence, emails, financial records or databases from companies, government agencies or non-profits, you can send them to us using the SafeHouse service.

The easy criticism is that the Journal, i.e. Murdoch, is being hypocritical.  But no good deed goes unpunished: the difference is that Assange has set up Wikileaks so that the attention is on himself.  That may sound like arrogance, but it’s also a technical maneuver: if the focus is on him, it’s not on the person who leaked him the information.

Safe House is explicitly the opposite:

You agree not to use SafeHouse for any unlawful purpose… we reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice.

Assange and Murdoch represent two extreme ends of a spectrum. Assange has declared himself anti-US, and Wikileaks is his weapon. Murdoch is explicity pro-US, and any information he receives will be filtered accordingly. In other words, neither represent journalism in any meaningful way. They are both commentary.

, , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    Wait a minute… WSJ wants people to submit “newsworthy contracts, correspondence, emails, financial records or databases from companies, government agencies or non-profits” then says ” we reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice”?

    “SafeHouse” sounds like a trap to me. What is their real intention? Obviously, it’s not to protect whistle-blowers.

  • Anonymous

    Wait a minute… WSJ wants people to submit “newsworthy contracts, correspondence, emails, financial records or databases from companies, government agencies or non-profits” then says ” we reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice”?

    “SafeHouse” sounds like a trap to me. What is their real intention? Obviously, it’s not to protect whistle-blowers.

  • Hadrian999

    The people should demand an indictment of traditional journalism for not doing their fucking jobs.

  • Hadrian999

    The people should demand an indictment of traditional journalism for not doing their fucking jobs.

    • Christopher

      Regular media in USA appear to have started this. Journalists are so bound by laws they dare not speak up for fear of prosecution and of losing their jobs. The Editor would not allow the story to go t print thats the trouble. Maybe this will change one day and I am a herbalist. We have our problems. Best wishes mate. Chris Menzies-Trull info@isisherbs.co.uk

  • Christopher

    Regular media in USA appear to have started this. Journalists are so bound by laws they dare not speak up for fear of prosecution and of losing their jobs. The Editor would not allow the story to go t print thats the trouble. Maybe this will change one day and I am a herbalist. We have our problems. Best wishes mate. Chris Menzies-Trull info@isisherbs.co.uk

  • Anonymous

    SafeHouse my ass. You would have to be pretty fucking stupid to leak something to Rupert Murdoch unless it was embarrassing to his enemies….in that case you are still stupid as you could probably sell the documents to his news organizations if they are that juicy.

  • MoralDrift

    SafeHouse my ass. You would have to be pretty fucking stupid to leak something to Rupert Murdoch unless it was embarrassing to his enemies….in that case you are still stupid as you could probably sell the documents to his news organizations if they are that juicy.

  • Anonymous

    “Assange and Murdoch represent two extreme ends of a spectrum. Assange has declared himself anti-US, and Wikileaks is his weapon.”

    So Assange has declared himself “anti-US”, has he? And Wikileaks is his (personal) “weapon”? Or is he just criticizing US-policy, and rightly so? I guess that makes me “anti-US” also, since I explicitly hate and condemn US bombardment and invasion of foreign countries? I appreciate the Murdoch-bashing, but it seems to me the author of this piece has himself an ax to grind with Assange.

  • Borgar

    “Assange and Murdoch represent two extreme ends of a spectrum. Assange has declared himself anti-US, and Wikileaks is his weapon.”

    So Assange has declared himself “anti-US”, has he? And Wikileaks is his (personal) “weapon”? Or is he just criticizing US-policy, and rightly so? I guess that makes me “anti-US” also, since I explicitly hate and condemn US bombardment and invasion of foreign countries? I appreciate the Murdoch-bashing, but it seems to me the author of this piece has himself an ax to grind with Assange.

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Tell us your secrets! Give us all your dirty information! We certainly won’t, and I can’t stress this enough, won’t alert the authorities about you. Unless we get in trouble and need a name to give away. Or someone offers the right price. Or we just fuck up and accidentally do it, that could happen too. We call the program ‘SafeHouse’, and before you ask, yes, we are able to use that word and not break into laughter.”

    Jesus god you have got to be kidding me

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Tell us your secrets! Give us all your dirty information! We certainly won’t, and I can’t stress this enough, won’t alert the authorities about you. Unless we get in trouble and need a name to give away. Or someone offers the right price. Or we just fuck up and accidentally do it, that could happen too. We call the program ‘SafeHouse’, and before you ask, yes, we are able to use that word and not break into laughter.”

    Jesus god you have got to be kidding me

21
More in Classified, Julian Assange, Media, Wall Street Journal, Whistleblower
Religious Newspaper Removes Hillary Clinton From Situation Room Photo

Minor controversy erupted after people noticed that a Brooklyn-based, ultra-Orthadox Jewish newpaper's version of the iconic "Situation Room" photograph had Hillary Clinton mysteriously vanished. The story is an interesting and...

Close