Inside Story - Whistle blowers: 'Criminals' or the future of journalism?

Inside Story - Whistle blowers:
'Criminals' or the future of journalism?

When reporters from The Washington Post uncovered the Watergate scandal in the early seventies they were hailed as heroes. But after publishing more than 90,000 leaked documents on the war in Afghanistan, the work of Wikileaks editors has been denounced as "a criminal act". So has the impact of whistle blowers been reduced? Are they more vulnerable now? And are they the future of investigative journalism?

www.youtube.com...
english.aljazeera.net...


commentary:
What I do want to address
is the future of journalism. Can this really be
the new precedent for the future of journalism?
Is this type of total transparency really good
for society in general? Does it do more harm
than good? Is anything sacred when it comes
to National Security issues? Your thoughts
on the matter? Thanks

the real question is:

journalists, criminals or criminals?

the real criminals here is this corporate journalism that we see every day: the objective is not to inform, is to make money, to control ...

Originally posted by Faiol
the real question is:

journalists, criminals or criminals?

the real criminals here is this corporate journalism that we see every day: the objective is not to inform, is to make money, to control ...

Well said sir...

A call for real Journalism is needed...

As for whistleblowers...depends on what they blow and how careless the info is shared or tossed around the globe.

reply to post by Faiol

well ur right in some cases.
the leaks are def not our normal
spoon-fed propaganda.
I guess what I'm really asking
is whether or not this type of
journalism will expand in the
future?

this will probably be the future of journalism, since the internet is a good place for everyone to share information

in the future, there wont be corporate news in my opinion, I think our society will ignore them and use the internet freely

the problem with that is that, they may try to impose limits on the internet so that corporate news can be seen more "quick" than alternative sources

its definitely going to be a battle in the next few years: mainstream corporations x free people ... I dont know who is going to win ...

i retract that statement
being respectful
2nd

there was a great article yesterday (Wed) that includes the
information that whistle blowers bring to the table ---

and as with everything else, their product has to be taken with a grain of salt...
most importantly they are not the MSM puppets, but info-tainment is also just as bad as MSM

neithercorp.us...

By Giordano Bruno

Neithercorp Press – 10/20/2010

The progression of human society relies upon the steady distribution of information. The quality of that information, its accuracy and its honesty, determines the overall health of the cultures we create. When a source of information becomes compromised by unhealthy political ambition, social dogma, or the strangling hands of elitism, it’s like a poison well, spreading plague and pestilence throughout the nation, or even the world. [..]
In America today, the person searching for a pure source of truth in the media inevitably stumbles across many poison wells.[...]

reply to post by St Udio

excellent point
star for you
and I agree

Originally posted by boondock-saint

gut reactions are not dependent on watching a 23 min. video.

we already know, because of the Patriot Act... that these persons can be charged
with anti-patriotism /insurrection/ 'shouting Fire' / civil disturbance...
all at the whim of the DHS


besides the ground covered by the deeper meaning of the thread (censorship)
is far larger than the content of the 23 minutes of arguements on each side
in the video [ which i will now proceed to view ]




thanks


Oh & thanks for the atta-boy


in the first 10 minutes... i recollect how WWII correspondents had to have their coverage
of the war screened by the military...
the Korean conflict had about the same tight news control...
Vietnam was the turning point with the reporters & correspondents

now, with no gigantic infrastructure needed to process the plethora of war zone
info... the military & the military censorship screeners are now on an equal footing with
independent journalists, researchers, investigative citizen reporters...hooray!

military , or even political documents, paper or electronic, are now subject to public scrutiny
more than ever... so instead of trying to demonize the messengers,
'they' had better put in more secure firewalls and anti-leak protocols...
people have a right for this info.

Hey ,just give me the dam data and I will probably figure it out ... Good post S&F and as far as commenting on the people in the group interviewed well lets just say it was a good try from James but we aint buying it ....peace

reply to post by St Udio


Here is some news that might take away the ability to even try and get to the heart of the matter

Every email, phone call and website visit is to be recorded and stored after the Coalition Government revived controversial Big Brother snooping plans.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...-cover
By Tom Burghardt

October 20, 2010 "Antifascist Calling" A "Memorandum of Agreement" struck last week between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Agency (NSA) promises to increase Pentagon control over America's telecommunications and electronic infrastructure.



So if we are to try and find out just what the hell is going on then wikileaks or those types will have to be able to get to us ....peace

Whistle-blowers are definitely not criminals as they are not disclosing secrets for monetary or personal gain, or to fulfill some kind of agenda.

Clearing-houses for whistle-blowers are definitely not journalists, as they are impartial to the information, making it openly available rather than reporting on the information or putting it in any-kind of context.

However, neither Whistle-blowers or Clearing-houses are terrorists in a philosophical sense. Although those who desire to keep secret the information they disclose may call them a "terrorist" and from their perspective might as well be, Whistle-blowers and Clearing-houses are doing such "in good conscience" for the better good. As such, they should be lauded as courageous "heroes" by the general community, even if certain demographics within that general community may regard their actions as acts of terrorism. They are risking their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to let the Truth be known.

Where would we be without the likes of:

Frank Serpico who was the first police officer to report widespread corruption in a police department. Because of his bravery and decision to do what was right, police officers now have agencies they can report corruption to and have it investigated by a neutral party (Internal Affairs, the FBI, et cetera).

Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. State Department analyst who was the one to leak the Top-Secret "Pentagon Papers" to the NYT, revealing the secret pretexts for the war in Vietnam.

"Deep Throat" (a.k.a. W. Mark Felt) who blew the whistle on the Nixon Watergate scandal by leaking information to Washington Post reporters.

Karen Silkwood (the woman the movie "Silkwood" was about) who exposed safety violations at a nuclear plant in Oklahoma.

Jeffrey Wigand who blew the whistle on the cigarette industry on 60 Minutes, sparking Congressional hearings on the tobacco industry and stronger legislation of tobacco.

Linda Tripp who blew open the "Monica Lewinsky affair" during the Clinton Administration.

Sherron Watkins the former VP for Enron who exposed the illegal accounting methods being used by the Enron to hide the true state of its financial affairs that lead to the biggest bankruptcy of all time.

Special Agent Coleen Rowley of the FBI who released information that showed the mistakes that allowed the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon take place on 9/11.

(An even bigger list of important whistle-blowers can be found here.)

Whistle-blowers already have legal rights and protections under US Law, and should remain as such, even when the information they divulge would otherwise be considered illegal under other US Laws.

reply to post by fraterormus

frat
u bring up some very valid reasons why
whistle blowers are needed to curb
undisclosed criminal behavior.

But in essence, will whistle blowers ever
have a MSM presence ??
If wikileaks is closed down
tomorrow (hope not), but if they do
will some other organization or
news agency do what wikileaks
did? Is there a main stream market
for this type journalism?
Just asking questions here

Originally posted by boondock-saint
But in essence, will whistle blowers ever
have a MSM presence ??
If wikileaks is closed down
tomorrow (hope not), but if they do
will some other organization or
news agency do what wikileaks
did? Is there a main stream market
for this type journalism?
Just asking questions here

I think there will always be a market for this type journalism even as somebody said it's only infotainment. It plays out like some soap opera or reality tv. The real question is whether or not leaking this stuff will lead to any prosecutions. As far as I have seen with Wikileaks, none have been indicted. I do agree a nation should have secrets as far as National Security, but there is a fine line between National Security and criminal behaviour. And that remains the responsibility of the nations populace not someone sitting behind a curtain of immunity.