NY Times Considers Creating a WikiLeaks Type Site

eko3 writes "The New York Times is considering options to create an in-house submission system that could make it easier for would-be leakers to provide large files to the paper. From the article: 'Executive editor Bill Keller told The Cutline that he couldn't go into details, "especially since nothing is nailed down." But when asked if he could envision a system like Al Jazeera's Transparency Unit, Keller said the paper has been "looking at something along those lines."'"

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right

[oldmac31310]

That, and they would hold stories back for months or years as they have already done in the past - at the request of the government no less. I have no confidence in this and no one else should have either.

Re:What this really is

[icebike]

I missed the Sarcasm emoticon in your post just after you said:

It is easy to shut down a blogger or even someone like Assange. NY Times is different ballgame

The NY Times is all located in the US, in New York state, and mostly in New York City. So a take down notice is easily delivered. Besides, the NYT is the lapdog of the liberal left, and not likely to leak anything of importance.

First Amendment you claim? If you still believe it has any teeth in the light of recent history you are delusional.

Re:What this really is

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, lapdog for the liberal left [wikipedia.org].

Apparently that word means something different in USAsia.

Re:They won't have the guts to do it right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd also like to point out the largest black eye that the New York Times still carries to this day.

Sitting on the Illegal U.S. Wiretapping Story for a year during the early Bush Administration.

Care to defend how a Corporate news agency will able to achieve the likes of what Wiki-leaks is doing?

Don't Hold Your Breath

[Voline]

If the point to leaking documents is to get information to the public about wrongdoing by powerful institutions like governments and large corporations so that the public can do something about it, The New York Times is not where I'd send the information.

The Times had evidence of the Bush Administration program to illegally wiretap American Citizens but, at the urging of the White House, sat on the story [fair.org] for a year until after the 2004 elections before publishing. The public might have taken action to punish the perpetrators of this crime by voting them out of office. But the Times made sure that the powerful lawbreakers avoided any accountability [blogspot.com] for their crimes.

Go ahead and leak information about crimes to The New York Times. But if that information implicates powerful people or institutions in the US, don't expect them to publish until the criminals have safely gotten away with it.