WikiLeaks vs. The New York Times

A recent blog at SFWeekly.com shed some light on the current debate regarding WikiLeaks and its opposition.

The "argument" or "feud" was between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and New York Times executive editor Bill Keller. It appears that the argument first started when Keller made some odd claims about how difficult it was working with Assange and how WikiLeaks' founder seemed to be less than 100 percent in touch with reality.

Assange countered that the NYT was doing its best to keep from looking like it was collaborating with WikiLeaks in case legal issues arose with the release of information. He also said that Keller seemed to show a lot of deference to the Pentagon prior to the release, to the point where he looked willing to cover up some information than release it.

Despite some of the more childish aspects of this argument, it raises some good questions about how to treat sources and how to also work within the confines of a government that could potentially prosecute.

Keller appears to dislike Assange enough to color him in a negative light for his quirks or past behavior, and Assange wants to call Keller out for his caution. It seems that issues like this will continue to be points of contention for journalism in the future, and any upcoming journalists will need to know where their employers and sources stand.

Photo Credit: Raymond Salvatore Harmon via Creative Commons