NY Times Considers Creating a WikiLeaks Type Site 114
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."'"
Don't they already have one: a newspaper (Score:5, Interesting)
There's very little "wiki" to Wikileaks. As for leaking stuff, they pride themselves on having the stuff vetted and confirmed by a team of professional journalists.
So it's a website with a bunch of journalists. And some pointy haired boss in NYT is saying "Ooooh, we should set up one of those!"
The only question is: why to whistle blowers go to Wikileaks instead of NYT?
Re:What this really is (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe First Amendment will prevail if it is given a chance. But if take someone like Assange, put out a smear campaign and put him away for something else, then 1st Amendment is irrelevant.
You can't put away NY Times because you can't say "NY Times raped kids" or similar garbage. Any NY Times case would have to be fought over the actual publication, not proxy charges.
If Assange worked for NY Times, the published leaks would have been more selective (ie. no point in leaking useless chitchat), but funding would not have been cut off. NY Times has billions at disposal, provided there is interest in its stories. Individuals, even wealthy ones, do not have the same clout.
We need less martyrs, and more actual cases that deal with 1st Amendment. Martyrs simply produce proxy charges, like Assange.