Reporters Sans Frontières - Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: ‘‘A bad precedent for the Internet's future''

Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article “Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010” on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001. Full Story »

Posted by Joey Baker - via Jay Rosen, Josh_Young (t), Rachel Fus (t), Kaizar Campwala (t), barbara trummpinski-roberts (t), Joey Baker (t), Donica Mensing (t), Shakthi Sivanathan (t), Jon Mitchell (t), Jeppe Kabell (t)
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Joey Baker - Aug 12, 2010 - 2:20 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Cynthia Gilbert - Aug 13, 2010 - 5:19 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Julia Willebrand
2.2
by Julia Willebrand - Aug. 13, 2010

It isn't journalism at all. It reads as though written by the Obama administration. No sources cited, no evidence of harm other than that claimed by the Obama administration. Reporters Without borders which claims to represent a free press could at a minimum have checked out some of the documents before attacking Assange. At his post leak conference Assange said that the data had been organized and could be searched. Did the authors of this attack actually look at any of the data? And justifying their attack by claiming that an administration that plans to continue a nine year war is already under pressure and doesn't need the pressure the Document dump is bringing is shocking/

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Joey Baker
3.8
by Joey Baker - Aug. 13, 2010
See Full Review » (9 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.4

Average
from 3 reviews (51% confidence)
Quality
3.4
Fairness
2.0
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Style
3.0
Accuracy
2.0
Context
2.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
2.0
Originality
2.5
Relevance
4.0
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
3.5
Popularity
3.3
Recommendation
3.3
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!