Kathlyn Clore

When Wikileaks unencrypted and published exclusive US military footage of American soldiers in an Apache helicopter gunning down 12 people in Baghdad – including two Reuters journalists – the organisation gained new viewers and international attention.

Sree Sreenivasan, a digital media professor at Columbia Journalism School, told The Independent:

“This might be the story that makes Wikileaks blow up. It’s not some huge document with lots of fine print – you can just watch it and you get what it’s about immediately. It’s a whole new world of how stories get out.”

Wikileaks is a loosely connected group of tech-savvy editors, cryptologists and activists. It doesn’t have a headquarters or office.

But it manages to break major stories the mainstream press was unable to report. Reuters had been working for two years to access the Baghdad video through the Freedom of Information Act.

In less than a week, the 18-minute version of the black-and-white footage – to which Wikileaks added narrative text and subtitles – was watched 4.6 million times on YouTube.

A 40-minute, unedited version was viewed half a million times.

Those counts don’t include copies and versions shown by broadcasters like CNN.

What is Wikileaks?
Wikileaks has been receiving and publishing leaked memos, reports, databases and briefings since 2006. It publishes explanatory press releases alongside the documents it receives from whistleblowers around the world.

Much of the information published by Wikileaks has resulted in front-page stories that lead to political or regulatory changes. These kinds of changes are the primary motivation of the site.

Wikileaks says it has published more than a million documents without revealing an anonymous source.

A few major Wikileaks scoops:

A report from the commodities company Trafigura about toxic waste dumping in Ivory Coast. Wikileaks published the information after Trafigura successfully filed a “super-injunction” against The Guardian. This was lifted after Wikileaks published the documents.

The site published a membership list of the secretive British National Party. Policeman and other professionals are not allowed to join the far-right political group; a few of the members Wikileaks exposed were fired from their jobs as teachers, policemen and clergymen.

Operating manuals for the US prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay. These described prisoner intimidation tactics involving dogs and described hiding prisoners from the International Red Cross.

A list of websites blacklisted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

A recording of a top state official in Peru talking with a lobbyist about payments to help Discover Petroleum of Norway firm win contracts. Peru’s energy and mines minister resigned as a result of the story.

Internal documents from Kaupthing Bank, an Icelandic bank taken over by that government in 2009. The documents exposed large loans the bank made to its shareholders in the weeks prior to the financial crisis in Iceland.

Kaupthing Bank’s lawyers fought to keep the story off of RUV, the national public broadcaster in Iceland. They filed a successful injunction against RUV, but the news anchors mentioned the story on air – as well as the injunction – and referred viewers to Wikileaks for more information.

National outrage over the injunction sparked a movement called the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI). It is an ongoing attempt to craft media laws that would attract media businesses – particularly those with an investigative bent – to set up shop in Iceland.

Wikileaks has been recognised with awards like the 2008 Economist New Media Award and a 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award.

The “wiki” prefix rather reflects the concept guiding Wikileaks: For anyone to be able to upload and post sensitive documents – like the encrypted US Army video – without editorial interference.

There is no relationship between Wikipedia and Wikileaks.

Who is Wikileaks?
Journalists at Wired UK, Mother Jones and Al-Jazeera have written stories profiling the shadowy and small organisation.

All reach the same conclusion: There are more questions than answers about Wikileaks.

Two things about the people involved in creating and propagating the site are certainly true:

• They’d rather journalists didn’t bother profiling them. Rather, Wikileaks organisers seem to prefer that journalists focus their attention on materials leaked through their website.

  
  

• They’d rather not give out any information about themselves. This ethos evokes images of spies and so-called “hacktivists.” And of course, they refuse to give any information about their sources.

An Australian man named Julian Assange is the public face of Wikileaks. Little is known about Assange’s background, place of residency or daily whereabouts. His behaviour during one-on-one interviews with journalists has been described as erratic and slightly paranoid.

He has left comments on articles about Wikileaks in which he says the articles contain inaccurate or unfair information about the Wikileaks. But he does not typically respond to the resulting offers to provide more detailed information about his Wikileaks colleagues.

Assange did research for the 1997 book, Underground: Tales of hacking, madness and obsession on the electronic frontier.

The book profiles the lives of early Internet hackers. Some bloggers have speculated that Assange is himself one of the pseudonymous hackers profiled.

A podcast related to the book is available here.

Verifiable information about other Wikileaks contributors is difficult to find.

Conspiracy theories
Wikileaks is the kind of organisation about which it is easy to spin conspiracy theories:

• It regularly publishes sensitive information governments and big companies don’t want the public to see.




• Little is known about where its servers are – some reports say Sweden, others Iceland – although its main domain name is registered in California. It also has, though, mirror sites and country-specific domain names.




• While it is customary in Western journalism that whistleblowers remain anonymous, information is usually available about the journalists or media outlets who gather and publish scoops.

Some people have wondered if Wikileaks is a front for the CIA.

One of the sources cited by conspiracy theorists is John Young, an American who runs the website Cryptome. It has a mission identical to that of Wikileaks; it has posted around 54,000 documents

There is a connection between Young and Assange – the two corresponded at length in a series of e-mails Young posted on Cryptome – but the tone of their current relationship is not clear.

Young responded on his website to recent questions about his opinion regarding Wikileak’s potential CIA ties:

“Copying the behavior of spy agencies is exactly what they want in order to legitimate their criminal chicanery. Until Wikileaks becomes a fully open and accountable operation it is the same as the spy agencies and indeed helps legitimate their manipulation of public opinion on behalf of their self-promotion “in the public interest.”

Business models
In early 2009 Wikileaks suspended operations to focus on fundraising.

It took all its material offline – although distributed copies remain scattered around the Internet – and said it was focusing on meeting a fundraising goal of $600,000 with a minimum of $200,000.

Wikileaks quickly met its $200,000 goal.

The site says it accepts no government or corporate funding. It relies on private donations and pro-bono support from lawyers.

The staff who manage daily operations – which Assange has said is himself and four others – is not paid on a regular basis. As for keeping fed, Assange has said he “made money on the Internet.”

In 2008, Wikileaks experimented with auctioning exclusivity rights to thousands of e-mails between Hugo Chavez and his speechwriter (himself a former ambassador to Argentina).

The auction was logistically difficult to arrange and was the subject of more media coverage than the content of the e-mails. Wikileaks has not since attempted duplicate such a large-scale auction.

J-school friend: i’d suggest giving your posts more of a personal voice. it can be a bit hoity-toity this is the future of journalism sounding
Me: ok - yes, i am trying! i realize i’m not very comfortable doing that so I really have to try. but you’re right… my friends’ blogs I like most really use a unique voice
J-school friend: professional but personal
Me: yes… it’s harder than I thought
J-school friend: like use facts, interviews, etc… for cred but don’t make it sound like a trade magazine, which it has not for the most part. i’m no good at it either
J-School friend: yeah, i have to write this weekly column where we can be more personal, i tend to just write it as another story

A few weeks ago I had this conversation with (clearly) a J-school friend who works for a newspaper in Maryland. I thought of it today while reading a blog post lamenting the proliferation - and shortcomings - of what that blogger calls the institutional voice.

Institutional voice, as I interpret it in this instance, is the voice of the all-knowing disinterested reporter. It’s the rather drone-like, systematic voice we use and increasingly try to break out of when writing news stories. And, if you’re as lucky as my J-school friend and I, it was drilled into your head (fingers?) from the time you wore braces and wrote columns about how high school administrators should permit the girls soccer team to practice in their sports bras when it’s hot outside just like the dance team girls (TOTALLY discrimination. Totally.). Later, when your braces came off and you got to college, you used the institutional voice to bang out wrestling team features and 10-inch game stories (over and over and over).

It’s hard to escape, this institutional voice. Especially when a lot of older journalism professionals (perhaps: delusionals?) tell you this is the voice in which you must write at least a million words before you even begin to develop even the most rookie-level of writing abilities.

Even trickier, it seems, is how to balance the fact-driven, authoritative institutional voice with a more creative one.

A new-to-me example of a writer who has managed to shed the institutional voice and convey useful information (albeit not the most time-sensitive information) with flair is Jack Tomas. He’s writing the snark-a-licious “Get to know your dictator” series at Guanabee.com, a Gawker-esque site dedicated to Latin American pop culture.

He manages to write cheeky Wikipedia-esque profiles, some of which feature newsy tie-ins, of Latin American dictators past and present. His columns are a great way to feed readers their “veggies” (ie, information useful for becoming an informed citizen) with such a flair they don’t realize what they’re taking in. When I read the first one, on Hugo Chavez, I didn’t even realize how much I was learning.

Apparently Hugo is “the Jonas Brothers of leftist Latino politics” who in “1999 he was elected president and immediately began consolidating power. He got advice from his new BFF, elder dictator and beard enthusiast Fidel Castro”. And if I am ever in Venezuela, I will totally check out his TV show - “He stars in his own TV show called Alo, Presidente in which he holds the airwaves captive for four hours at a time, kind of like Don Francisco does with Sabado Gigante, but with less stupid hats and dancing boxes of Tide Ultra. [Ed: Although just as many breasts--his!]”

It’s no intense narrative effort, but at least it’s not the institutional drone you (er, your grandpa) read over the breakfast table each morning.

Right now on my alumni e-mail listserve from university a discussion is raging about whether or not to encourage young people to attend journalism schools.

It started with a posting of this TechCrunch article, which argues not against practicing journalism, but against outmoded journalism education.

Seems fair enough. Why go into debt (typical of the American collegiate experience) to learn outdated skills? Why prepare to enter an industry in peril?

Then again, there are benefits to a practical liberal arts education. Certainly journalism schools provide degrees more practical than, say, English departments. Although a journalism degree is not, by comparison, as practical as one granted by science, law, or medical faculties.

Regardless… The discussion on my e-mail listserve has been about the need (or not) for journalism education in the U.S.

While following the chatter, I realized it is worthwhile to consider the vital role journalistic approaches and practices play on continents other than North America. Some of the most important (in my opinion) work the EJC does is its attempts to improve the journalism education systems in former Soviet nations. The rationale is that students graduating from universities in Eastern Europe will be far better prepared to help in the continuing transition processes if they are educated beyond old Soviet schools of thought about media.

Journalism education is also especially important in countries like Russia or Africa. Yesterday I edited an interview with a Liberian doctoral student in Moscow. He’s been in Russia for about a decade, but upon earning his doctorate will return home to practice journalism in Africa. I can imagine he will draw often on his education.

And after reading this deflating BBC update about American journalist Roxana Saberi, I am reminded that foreign correspondents are especially in need of good education.

Saberi

was arrested in January for buying a bottle of alcohol in Iran. I have wondered if she really was actually caught buying alcohol, which I understand to be illegal but tolerated in Iran. Perhaps something else happened. Because I’m surprised a foreign journalist in that country - especially a woman - would put herself at risk by purchasing anything illegal. Doing so seems unnecessarily provocative, especially for an Iranian-American journalist who has a background in both nations and could thus be seen as particularly subversive.

That’s just a question I have wondered since reading about her arrest, which has for some reason piqued my interest. Truly I hope the situation resolves itself peacefully (for her and future foreign reporters in Iran).

Saberi is now on trial - behind closed doors, scarily enough.

Granted, sometimes journalists have to deal with dangerous situations in foreign lands. But that’s precisely why they need to be educated: To understand their legal rights at home and abroad, to understand various cultures and political systems, to know languages. There is more to being a journalist than being able to communicate well on various technical platforms.

I am about halfway finished reading the book International News Reporting: Frontlines and Deadlines. The book explains a lot about how the news “works” (a lot of info I wish my media-bashing boyfriend would read!) and makes the case for why professional journalism (something apart from citizen journalism) is important and will continue to be necessary - especially breaking news, analysis and war coverage.

What I’ve re-realized is just how much footage I see on CNN and BBC comes from freelancers. I am always conscious of how much newspaper content comes from wire services, but I’d forgotten that the same goes for broadcast journalism (a term I once heard a managing editor describe as “an oxymoron).

I particularly liked Chapter Four, on freelance journalism, written by a famous (at least in the industry) cameraman called Vaughan Smith. He founded Frontline Club.

He writes that working for an employer (i.e., being employed by a newspaper or station) is for journalists tantamount to sacrificing, on whatever level, journalistic purpose in its essence.

“ But it is still remarkable how many highly intelligent journalists lose their capacity for critical analysis when considering their own industry and profession. For which too few assume any responsibility,” he writes.

A few pages later:

“Journalists can choose to work on the outside, and freelance journalism, unfiltered and fettered, when conducted skillfully and with integrity, though its reach may be shorter, is journalism’s highest form.”

I gotta say, I have the utmost respect and admiration for freelance journalism, which I normally associate with international stories. The journalists who pursue that work remind me of crazy athletes I’ve interviewed who make a hobby of Ironman Triathlons. They (the athletes and hardcore freelancers) are people who often neglect the personal relationships in their lives to pursue their ‘mission.’

But also, I often find that these people have sidelines in other work. Or they are financially supported by a family member. Or they’re older journalists who established themselves by working for, well, the establishment.

I can’t really decide if I agree with Smith’s premise that being employed fulltime sacrifices journalistic integrity. I think this outlook is certainly worth consideration but may be entirely too academic.

Regardless, reading Smith’s chapter reminds me of a short interview/chat I did/had last year at DNA2008 (Bernd produced the video):



I read today that The New York Times is considering putting its content again behind a wall. Nearly all content at NYT.com has been free for nearly two years.

I’d be disappointed for sure to see this happen. But would I go so far as to buy a subscription? Who are the people who would take out a subscription?

Maybe they’re the same kind of people who religiously pay for music on iTunes. Check out this cool graphic Vanity Fair created a few weeks ago, imagining a micropayment plan of sorts for news content.

I think someone should try this…

I heard Mehmet Koksal speak at the European Investigative Journalism Conference. He gave a great insight into what it takes to cover minority issues in Europe. I think these communities are truly harder to penetrate in Europe than in the United States, where it seems everyone wants to assimilate and “be American.” From what I’ve experienced living in the Netherlands, you don’t really hear recent immigrants (legal or otherwise) talking about wanting to “be European,” or even “be Dutch.”

Heck, you barely hear Europeans speak about wanting to “be European!” Anyway, the following is the article I wrote after speaking further with Mehmet about the issues he raised at the conference. I had a delay in between interviewing him and publishing this, but I found his anecdotes and advice truly interesting and worthwhile for journalists to know.

Especially at its so-called heart, Europe is home to a dizzying array of small communities. Each capitol city has its own Turkish neighbourhoods, Jewish neighbourhoods and students’ areas.

All with their own stories.

But these communities can be wary of outsiders. Language barriers abound. Especially in cities outside their normal beats, journalists often need help going local. That’s where fixers come in.

Mehmet Koksal, 31, has been working as a fixer in Brussels since around 2000, when he started sharing his investigative work on a blog. He grew up in French-speaking Brussels, but both of his parents come from Turkey. He also speaks Dutch and English. After a year studying in St. Petersburg, he speaks Russian.

When he was a recent university graduate working outside the mainstream Belgian press, Koksal used a blog to promote transparency between minority groups in Belgium. He’d translate what was being said by actors in the political sphere, often revealing the efforts of politicians trying to influence voters by way of a different language.

“Most of the time that created a huge controversy,” he says.

He remains well-sourced in Belgium, particularly in minority communities. In addition to working as a fixer for The New York Times and Wall Street Journal Europe, he is a self-employed freelance journalist working for several news agencies as well as Courier International and IPS. He also works as an official translator for police and judges in Belgium.

Tips from Koksal and other journalists who have worked with fixers:

1. A good fixer isn’t too hard to find… If you know where to look

Koksal says journalists researching stories about minority issues in Belgium often stumble upon his name. They see he is working for established newspapers.

“The journalists’ world is a small world. If you know someone is a good person to work with, you give the name to your colleague who is coming to Brussels… I’m doing it when I go abroad, call some local contacts to see if they can give me the name of who I should contact.”

2. The motivations of a good fixer should be transparent. Is he in it for love or for money? His reputation should also be easy to ascertain.

Koksal is passionate about investigating where the mainstream press is not allowed. Plus, working with other journalists gives him a chance to learn on the job.

“I’m also receiving ideas for further articles,” he says. “And I never learned so much as when I worked for the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal as a fixer.”

3. A good fixer speaks the language of your sources. A great fixer speaks in an authentic accent and knows local slang. That can mean anything from speaking Russian in Latvia to speaking German with a wicked Turkish accent.

“In some communities, a brown-haired fixer who knows the slang is the most useful,” Koksal says.

4. The fixer should be steeped in the cultural background of your sources. He should anticipate their concerns and be able to address those in an honest, clear fashion.

“Turkish people sometimes see journalists as people who are promoting, who are only doing good coverage to promote a film for the movie industry, or a book for a famous writer,” Koksal says. “The first thing is to explain to those minority groups the idea of journalism, checks and balances, what the idea of transparency is… Most of the time we start from zero. So if you go in with your Ph.D. from a big university and you are expecting the same degree of knowledge, it simply does not work.”

5. A good fixer knows her way around local bureaucracies. She knows how to find birth certificates, religious documents and can unearth driving records.

Koksal worked with Craig Smith from The New York Times worked with Craig Smith from The New York Times to explore the background of Muriel Degauque, the first European woman to stage a suicide attack in Iraq. He worked to find her family, her friends, where she went to school, how she met her husband, when she converted to Islam, what kind of mosque she attended.

6. Reliable fixers will work with journalists to sync expectations about costs, decorum and safety prior to working together.

“I had an experience working with a fixer in Kashmir a few years ago,” e-mails American photographer Jenna Isaacson Pfueller. “I was paired up with two young men and an older driver. On the second day one of the young men began saying things and making advances I was uncomfortable with. Luckily I was able to quickly find another, female fixer I was much, much more comfortable with.

My advice would be to get to know your fixers a little bit, or talk with people they’ve worked with in the past before heading places that are even more unfamiliar than where you are. Since you’re trusting and paying this person and will be spending a good deal of time with them, you don’t want the added discomfort of that on top of the work you’re hoping to accomplish.”

7. When fixers are acting as translators, journalists and fixers should be able to communicate well in their bridge language to make sure each question and answer of an interview is clear. Both parties must be free to repeat, rephrase and re-clarify as much as needed.

“Make sure you understand each other perfectly,” e-mails Isabelle Roughol from a newspaper in Southeast Asia. “Even if it means repeating and reformulating your question five times, or making them repeat their answers five times. This is especially true when their English (or your whatever-language-they-speak) isn’t top-notch. One mistranslation can mean huge libel. Don’t take your chances.”

<b>8. Both parties should agree to the specific uses of the material. </b>

“I was raised in Europe, educated in the US and now work in Southeast Asia,” Roughol writes. “So I’ve had a chance to see how much journalism ethics differ from one place to the next. Make sure you and your fixer or translator are on the same page and comfortable with how each operates.”

9. Journalists should have realistic expectations of their fixers, not expecting them to construct a story.

“I’m not a magic man,” Koksal says. “Don’t call me if you have no idea what you want to write… It’s annoying when a journalist comes to Belgium and he didn’t do anything to research the subject he’s writing about.”

10. Approach the fixer with a long-term relationship in mind. Journalists who come to town looking for a one-off scoop will not be as successful as those who cultivate professional relationships.

“As a journalist you have to work on the long run,” Koksal says. “I’m living longtime relationships with my sources… and I’m not giving all their information all at once.”

—
Flickr images from users Ole Begemann, cicilief and bicyclemark