Are they legitimate?
When asked to name a news source, many of the public generally
reply with legacy organizations such as the New York Times, NPR, or CNN. Many
dismiss outlets such as TMZ and Wiki Leaks, which have been deemed by many as
illegitimate and inconsistent, and thus not considered newsworthy. Often times
instead of contributing to news coverage of major events, they themselves
become the story or the spectacle that distracts from those that factually
cover the news.
But what about when they are right?
WikiLeaks has brokered the release of several significant
stories that got reported on by “legitimate” news sources, such as the
publishing of Private Bradley E. Manning’s (now known as Chelsea) papers, a
video of U.S. helicopter killing a Reuters photographer and driver in Iraq, and
the Afghanistan War logs just to name a few. Recently, TMZ released the
security footage of ex-Raven’s star running back Ray Rice in a serious domestic
dispute with his then-fiancé (now wife) Janay Palmer. In all of the
aforementioned releases, legacy media outlets scooped up the stories and did
further, more in-depth reporting based on the information provided by WikiLeaks
and TMZ. Although their track record is not strong for getting stories right
every time, do the groundbreaking stories that turn out to be true change their
level of legitimacy. Clearly, these organizations have newsgathering skills
similar to those journalists that work in places like the NYT or WAPO.
WikiLeaks has made arrangements with other organizations in
the past to distribute some of their reports. In an article by Poynter titled How WikiLeaks is Changing the News PowerStructure the author states, “And yet WikiLeaks needed these titans of old
media. It needed their reporting, their reach, their distribution networks,
their reputation.” This implies that although these venues for leaked
information have the ability to obtain information, they are not seen as
legitimate and thus need to have a working relationship with legacy media to
put their information on a platform that it will be received.
Lack of Ethical Dilemmas/Standards
In the same way that news-leaking sites need legacy media to
legitimize their content, these news outlets need sources like TMZ and
WikiLeaks to obtain information in ways that might compromise legitimate
journalism ethics. SPJ and RTDNA journalism codes especially prohibit obtaining
information by serendipitous methods, paying for video or leads, or breaking
information that has not been thoroughly verified. Sites like TMZ and WikiLeaks
do not operate under those same standards of ethics, and thus have the
opportunity to obtain information that legacy media may not be able to because
of ethical codes or conflict of interest. For example, the Ray Rice elevator
video was released by TMZ, who incidentally is one of few news
outlets/broadcasting stations that does not have financial ties or a stake with
the NFL. Many have discussed how TMZ was the only organization that could have
broken that story because they are independent—they answer to no one.
In the same Poynter article the author states:
It has cracked open governments and
corporations without apparent repercussions because it has no headquarters, no
printing press or transmission tower, no physical address. It’s just a
confederation of skilled volunteers and Web servers. In that sense, WikiLeaks
is of the Internet.
In a way, the lack of these conflicts of interest frees
organizations that facilitate “leaks” from attachments that may handicap their
ability to report things to the best of their ability. Oftentimes it is these
organizations that while not as legit, can contribute the most seriously to the
free flow of information because they have the least amount of stakeholders
holding them back.
While people like Mr. Julian Assange, the founder of
WikiLeaks, and others who have contributed to news via “leaking” information
may not be journalists I think that they have exposed that the way that out
news culture is set up handicaps reporters in some capacity and prevents them
from serving their main purpose, which is to act as gatekeepers. The frequency
of leaking at first puts the spotlight on these illegitimate organizations, but
on second glance also can be used as a critique of legacy media within the
current system.
No comments:
Post a Comment