Reinstating the gatekeepers

The Wall Street Journal’s L. Gordon Crovitz thinks Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s “filtered version” of WikiLeaks will be soooo much better than the original:

...OpenLeaks seems to understand the need for some accountable institution to be held responsible for leaks...

which will come, how?

...the site will partner with media outlets^[1] - five newspapers at first - and allow users to choose which paper to submit their information to.  These papers will then be able to review and fact-check the material before choosing to publish it or not.

Which is better than WikiLeaks because (Crovitz, again):

Several large newspapers, including the New York Times and London-based Guardian, collaborated to publicize the WikiLeaks material, even though they had limited discretion over how the information was released.

(IOW, if they ignored any part of the story, somebody might have called them on it.)

Under the OpenLeaks approach, news editors will have discretion.  They will have to protect innocent people...

!!!^[2]

Unlike Mr. Assange, editors answer to someone, namely readers and viewers.

...but most often, only to themselves.

So Crovitz favors restoring the power to determine what we know to the traditional gatekeepers, who, of course, have no political agenda and will always be on the lookout to carefully filter out anything that might harm our national interest, upset the public, or embarrass the good and great.  Oh, and the usual special interests^[1] would have their shot at weighing in before anything reaches print.

And Crovitz, or his editors, have the temerity to say the Orwellianly-named OpenLeaks process “promises more transparency”!

I’ll take my chances, and take my leaks unfiltered, thanks.


Elsewhere (Later, 20101214 17:10):

-----

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 00:39:05 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 7 kb.