WikiLeaks is a three year-old, volunteer-run site that, as the name might suggest, "posts classified and sensitive documents" according to Noam Cohen and Brian Stelter, authors of the New York Times article addressing this (to read entire article, click title above). On the WikiLeaks website (wikileaks.com) is numerous documents and things regarding issues such as 9/11, toxic waste dumping, Guantanamo Bay, etcetera. The releasing of this video is drawing much more attention to the website than it has had in the past.
This 38 minute video, along with the shortened 17 minute version that has been more widely viewed, features obviously graphic violence within this attack that the website calls "provoked" and has named the video "Collateral Murder".
This site seems to be intent on getting 'the real message' to the public and informing them of what is 'really' happening. "The site is not shy on its intent to shape media coverage", say Cohen and Stelter. Site co-founder Julian Assange considers himself to be an activist as well as journalist and asserts that he feels it is time for the media to upgrade and utilize the "high-tech investigative journalism" he and his fellow volunteers do.
If WikiLeak's purpose is to leak unreleased government "secrets", so to speak, in an attempt to better educate media consumers of the truths of our country, I would say they were doing a decent job, considering the lengths they must go to in order to retrieve much of that information. However, is their media, unlike much of mainstream media, unbiased? On that note I would say no. Why? Well, an example directly from this New York Times article states that "WikiLeaks did not merely post the 38-minute video, it used the label “Collateral Murder” and said it depicted “indiscriminate” and “unprovoked” killing". By using words such as these, they classify their documents, specifically this video, as something to be looked at with disdain. The site's editors are clearly telling their audience how they should feel about the clip, without actually saying 'we feel xyz towards this action or document and so should you'. Though perhaps it is not on purpose, media audience can still be easily swayed by this. On the other hand, should we hold the same opinions anyway? After all, it is a clip which depicts the killing of "our boys". To decide for yourself if this video should have been posted, if this site is a good idea, if all news should be more like this, and if the "Collateral Murder" video's content was unnecessary killing or not, view the video and other 'stolen government documents', as it were, on the WikiLeaks website.
Choosing what channels and outlets to take in media from can be very difficult and stressful for consumers. As I have mentioned above, even without meaning to media can be biased and can influence the thoughts of its audience because of it. I would suggest gathering your news updates from several different sources. This way, you can compare stories and hopefully be able to better formulate your own ideas and opinions regarding the headlines.
It's s sticky situation with WikiLeaks; aren't they essentially stealing government secrets, then broadcasting them for the world to see? Some things, not all but some, are better left unsaid and unseen. Not all journalism rules can apply to this new media either. Like the article states, whereas before judges could delay or stop the publication of some things, this "digital sphere" enables information to appear instantaneously. So consumers: 1) gather information from several sources to ensure you truly are getting the full picture, and 2) what do you think about this WikiLeaks- a good idea, to get the 'true stories' of what 'they' aren't telling us out there, or are they sticking their nose where it probably shouldn't be?
-Sheila
I think its good that there is a group that is trying to get the truth of certain things out to the public but I think they need to also know the limit of what secrets to expose. Things that are exposed cannot be limited to a certain part of the population seeing it. This information spreads quickly through our network of media faster than ever before and kids have access to this media and see things they shouldn't at very young ages. Not to mention it being shown on the news stations where in most homes it is a natural thing having the news on at certain parts of the day.