Interesante búsqueda de razones contrapuestas para concluir que -hasta ciento punto- WikiLeaks puede considerarse un tipo de periodismo, asociado a la suerte de del periodismo realizado online por parte de algunos blogs.
La periodista Kate Ausburn, de Green Left, semanario australiano inclinado hacia un periodismo alternativo, plantea las cosas así, como un diálogo implícito de alternativas entre Brad Norington, periodista de News Corporation, y Julian Assange:
Writing in the aftermath of the several high profile WikiLeaks publications including the Collateral Murder video and the Afghanistan and Iraq War Logs, News Corporation journalist Brad Norington set out on a crusade against online media, and more specifically, against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
In an August 2010 article for The Australian titled “WikiLeaks vigilante denies having blood on his hands over disclosures”, Norington argued that traditional media “retains an important accountability role in a modern democracy” unlike bloggers whose “fast-and-loose values” include “no editing, no standards, no accountability, no responsibility”.
Assange explained WikiLeaks editing process in a July 2010 video interview with TED.com’s Chris Anderson.
Assange discussed WikiLeaks’ process of obtaining and publishing information. He said that after receiving information from sources, WikiLeaks staff “vet it like a regular news organisation”, editing sensitive personally identifying information and checking authenticity before to publication.
He noted that prior to the release of a video now known as Collateral Murder, which depicted the killing of a dozen people in Iraq by US military, two people from the WikiLeaks team were sent to Baghdad to further investigate the story.
This information is contrary to Norington’s claim that WikiLeaks, who he lumps together with bloggers, have “no editing” and “no standards”.
Norington is far from the only traditional journalist critical of WikiLeaks and online journalism or blogging in general. But why do some journalists hate WikiLeaks?
Is it because the organisation is not only holding to account our governments and corporations, but also our journalists?
WikiLeaks is a game-changer, encouraging a scientific approach to journalism, where source documents are provided alongside stories, and empowering the reader to decide if the report is fair and accurate.
Legitimate journalism does exist online. WikiLeaks is a shining example of this. It encourages a democratic public discourse that holds our leaders accountable for the war and diplomacy they carry out in our name.