Is WikiLeaks a news site?

After WikiLeaks released approximately 75,000 previously classified military documents about the Afghan war, much of the debate focused on the pros and cons of releasing the information. The arguments swirled around whether the documents put military, informant and service people’s lives in danger as well as whether the documents actually provided any new information that wasn’t previously known.

I was left with another question: Is what WikiLeaks does considered journalism?

The Poynter Institute described WikiLeaks as “a new type of media player, an information broker that collects secrets and negotiates how they will be revealed.” The rest of the article painted the picture that WikiLeaks was a source of information, but not a news outlet. In that sense, WikiLeaks is like a source that would be interviewed for a story — it is a source of information for a news story, but not the news outlet putting out the story.

The Poynter article linked to blogs and online pieces about WikiLeaks that muddy the waters around whether the website is a news site or something else. NYU media expert Jay Rosen wrote in his Press Think blog on July 26 that WikiLeaks was a “stateless news organization” because it was online, accessible from anywhere, and not headquartered in one building in one city. Then Rosen wrote this:

Appealing to national traditions of fair play in the conduct of news reporting misunderstands what Wikileaks is about: the release of information without regard for national interest. In media history up to now, the press is free to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the laws of a given nation protect it. But Wikileaks is able to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the logic of the Internet permits it. This is new. Just as the Internet has no terrestrial address or central office, neither does Wikileaks.

In this case, WikiLeaks is a news outlet, but the kind that we have never seen before. C.W. Anderson, writing on the Nieman Lab website, agreed that WikiLeaks blends a little of the old in journalism with the new that Rosen and Poynter pointed out:

I think it represents something new in journalism, or something old-enough-to-new: a focus on the aggregation of a million “on the ground reports” that might sometimes get us closer to the truth than three well placed sources over a nice off-the-record dinner. And I’m fascinated by this because this is the way that I, as a qualitative social scientist, have always seen as a particularly valid way to learn about the world.

New York Times media columnist David Carr appeared to reinforce the idea that WikiLeaks is a form of journalism that is so new it has yet to be properly identified. But there was something more that the release of the documents showed: The new news organization — WikiLeaks — needed the old, or traditional news organizations — The Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel — to ensure the documents were read and lend credibility to the online source of the information.

In one sense, the carefully choreographed exercise represented a new kind of hybrid journalism. WikiLeaks was more than just a source, it was a publisher. And however it got the goods, WikiLeaks found willing collaborators in the mainstream eager to both compete on a big story and to serve their readers.

But the episode was also an affirmation of traditional journalism. WikiLeaks might have simply dumped the data on its Web site for all to see, but chose instead to engage mainstream publications which sifted, annotated and made sense of it all.

Being able to synthesize the information and present it to the public in a coherent and effective manner could be considered a staple of journalism, but is it necessary for a new form of journalism? I’ll have to think about that a little more. In the meantime, let’s answer some quick questions to determine if WikiLeaks is a news outlet.

1. A journalist is independent. Is WikiLeaks independent? Yes.
2. A journalist’s primary mission is to inform the public. What WikiLeaks says: “We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government. That is why the time has come for an anonymous global avenue for disseminating documents the public should see.” So informing the public is one of its primary missions.
3. A journalist employs methods to verify information. What WikiLeaks says:”WikiLeaks staff examine all documents and label any suspicions of inauthenticity based on a forensic analysis of the document, means, motive and opportunity, cost of forgery, what the authoring organization claims and so on. We have become world leaders in this and have an enviable record: as far as can be determined, we have yet to make a mistake. This does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far, our method is working and we have a reputation to protect.” WikiLeaks also says that it sends people to parts of the world where leaks originate to substantiate claims. The answer to this question is, again, yes.
4. A journalist is accountable for and stands by their work. WikiLeaks does the same.

Altogether, WikiLeaks meets the test of being a journalism organization.