tip off

Fairfax to release WikiLeaks cables this afternoon

Fairfax Media struck a deal with WikiLeaks to simultaneously publish the raw cables it has relied upon for its series of impressive scoops by Philip Dorling, but according to newsroom insiders the whistleblower website is yet to uphold its end of the bargain.

The revelations, relayed to Crikey by a senior Age journalist, cast a new slant on complaints from other sections of the media that The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald had led readers astray by failing to air the Cablegate source documents for fear its commercial competitors would mine them for journalism gold.

The senior scribe with knowledge of the operation said that WikiLeaks had welched on the pact partly because of the legal turmoil in London involving its founder, Julian Assange.

Phillip has a relationship with WikiLeaks, he got the information — the agreement was that they would put the up concurrently with our stories and then we would put them up.

Now for some reason they haven’t been putting them up and I suspect that’s because Assange has been otherwise occupied…but we felt uncomfortable putting the cables up if they hadn’t. We needed their express permission to put our cables up, which we weren’t getting.”

Following the breakdown of the agreement, the journalist said Fairfax would finally publish on its websites later today the “around 60” cables it has relied upon so far for its splashes, which began to be rolled out last week. They are expected to be read by rival outlets with interest.

This week, in a double-barrelled attack, ABC Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes and ABC Drum correspondent Alan Kohler slammed The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald for refusing to release the raw material, denying the public the power to rate the veracity of Dorling’s reports.

Holmes made reference to Fairfax’s ignorance of “scientific journalism”, while Kohler described the media giant as a “parasite that deliberately keeps its host alive while harvesting its blood.”

Last week, Crikey’s Bernard Keane wrote that, “We cannot, as Assange says, “judge for ourselves”, because Fairfax won’t let us…we’ll have to wait until this afternoon, or tomorrow, or next week, to verify the account and see the full context, by which time the media cycle will have long since moved on.”

In a response to Holmes sent yesterday afternoon, SMH editor-in-chief Peter Fray defended his decision not to publish, saying he was currently working to get the cables online. But he added that some of the documents contained multiple stories and that to release them prematurely “would be to give access to our competitors in the local market.”

In her media diary column for The Australian on Monday, Caroline Overington hinted at News Limited’s disgust, writing that “envoys from other media organisation [sic] are telling WikiLeaks it’s surely against the spirit of the free-information movement to give juicy cables to some media organisations while keeping them from others.”

News has been left in the lurch by Dorling’s contacts inside WikiLeaks, often forcing it to play catch-up on each day’s exclusives in its second and third editions. In one notorious piece, reporter James Massola, rather than cover that day’s revelations about Kevin Rudd, penned an attack on his former Canberra Times colleague, who he described as sporting a “waxy, wan appearance” — an apparent hallmark of figures associated with Australia’s intelligence community. In another piece, the newspaper argued the WikiLeaks stories weren’t news.

However, logistical issues have also played upon Fairfax’s decision to keep its powder dry. The Age journalist contacted by Crikey said the company had received the raw data just days before the first revelations ran. The scenario differs markedly from that of the Guardian and The New York Times, who received their stash months ago. Following a rigorous dissection, the official partners post the raw cables exclusively on their websites — alongside the relevant write-up — before WikiLeaks uploads them a few days later.

The source said Fairfax was scrambling to get its stories up each day: “we’re still getting fresh cables now. And we’re a much smaller organisation. It’s actually a fairly big task to transmit the information in a way you can put online,” adding the cables were received in a strange format that required work to make them publishable.

Because we’re working on a vast trove of documents, we thought ‘let’s get some documents to WikiLeaks they’ll put them online, we’ll get there eventually’. Unfortunately that hasn’t happened as smoothly as we would have liked.”

Meanwhile, the journalist said the public wasn’t the least bit concerned by the lack of raw material.

The only people who are raising concerns are other journalists…we haven’t had a single Age reader who’s asked ‘where the hell are the cables?’ It’s just other journalists that want to exploit the cables themselves.”

I understand the argument, but at the same time, the public aren’t outraged.”

Crikey understands that Fairfax were originally set to publish in February next year but that the yarns were brought forward because News’ local arm had been secretly trying to buy the documents through representatives in Europe (despite The Wall Street Journal having previously passed over them).

That pitch is believed to be continuing, but as yet, no newspaper in the global Murdoch stable has managed to land a Cablegate scoop.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40649624/ns/politics/
16
  • 1
    botswana bob
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Fairfax may find access to its websites blocked by those lovers of free speech, the Amerikan government. THE GUARDIAN reports that the US Air Farce is blocking access to it and the NY TIMES. Apparently the Library of Congress is putting a bar on accessing WIKILEAKS.
    Looks like FREE SPEECH means you are free to fulsomely praise the U S Government. Do anything else, well that is what the Espionage Act is for.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-cables-us-air-force

  • 2
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Hmm… I remember seeing a Wikileaks tweet early in the cables timeline saying journalists could contact them for access to the cables. Did the others not bother?

    Also, FYI Fairfax, I’m not a journalist, and I want to see the original materials. How do we know how accurate your analysis (or opinion) is if we can’t see the documents on which you base it?

  • 3
    Angra
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Well this seems a bit strange to me. Sounds like cut-throat politics in the ‘meeja’ cos some sections have been frozen out of the scoop of the decade and are forcing Fairfax’s hand. If you were in possession of the Goose that laid the golden eggs, would you lend it to your competitors? Maybe Dorling should release the original cable alongside each story, but to dump the whole lot?

    On the other hand, spreading the source info around (which is what Wikileaks tried to do on an international level) kinda lessens the culpability of any one player and may be a benefit in the long run. After all is the US Gov willing to take on the whole Murdoch empire?

    Bit like the kid in the playground with the only signed portrait of Justin Bieber. He’s gonna get bullied to hell right?

  • 4
    OD
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Its rot that the public are not interested in the cables that Fairfax drawing its stories from.
    Me too - I’ve been looking for them and twittering around asking where they are, ever since SMH started putting out their pieces this week.
    Glad that resolved… can move onto the next rant

  • 5
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Wiki giving Mudorc’s empire access would be kinda inimical to the aim of honesty & openess wouldn’t it? It can’t even be trusted to print TV schedules without taint.

  • 6
    freecountry
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Still stuck in the 20th century, chasing scoops. May as well be printing Zimbabwean dollars or selling coal to Newcastle. Information is confetti now. The competition is no longer other newspapers; as far as scoops go, the competition is the entire internet, which is bigger and more resourceful than all the world’s newspapers combined. That’s a competition the newspapers cannot win. The future belongs to those that can combine the information overload with real specialized knowledge in a variety of fields, and turn it all into something coherent.

  • 7
    David Reid
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    The text of cables are at:

    http://images.theage.com.au/file/2010/12/15/2096934/Cables.htm?rand=1292396653979

    Fairfax have been too lazy to make any attempt to format or organise the cables. However, the contents are there for all to read and I suppose that is the most important thing.

  • 8
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Fairfax left out little tit bits like Beazley calling Hicks a ratbag and asking that he be released.

  • 9
    anne1024
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    At least their excuse is has got its own entertaining kind of logic.

    “…the agreement was that they would put the up concurrently with our stories and then we would put them up. Now for some reason they haven’t been putting them up and I suspect that’s because Assange has been otherwise occupied…but we felt uncomfortable putting the cables up if they hadn’t.

  • 10
    freecountry
    Posted Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    Anne, Yes, isn’t that surreal. Fairfax don’t feel “uncomfortable” about the controversial nature and provenance of the material, the fact that one man is being indicted for it and may go to prison for decades, while another rates a bigger international manhunt than most major war criminals … and yet they feel “uncomfortable” interpreting an informal embargo arrangement to fit the circumstances.

    I don’t believe them. I think more likely, Fairfax have ethical doubts about whether the cables should be published in this way — the volume of compromised diplomatic-in-confidence material being so far out of proportion to the amount of journalistic insight to be gained from studying them. I think Fairfax just don’t want to be the ones to make that call. They want the scoop, but not the ethical responsibility.

  • 11
    Kevin Tyerman
    Posted Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    Quote: “…but we felt uncomfortable putting the cables up if they hadn’t. We needed their express permission to put our cables up, which we weren’t getting.”

    Express permission? Bwahaha. Does Wikipedia now hold copyright or legal ownership of these documents? Have they indicated that they will take legal action for publishing these documents under such circumstances?

  • 12
    Jenn Godiva
    Posted Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    PROTEST TO DEFEND WIKILEAKS and JULIAN ASSANGE, Melb Australia

    Friday 17th Dec 2010, 5.30pm @ State Library of Victoria (cnr Swanston & La Trobe streets, Melbourne city, March to British consulate)

    After two rallies in Melbourne of over one thousand people we need to continue the fight to defend freedom of speech and to defend Wikileaks.

    Last rally over 3000 people said they were attending! Lets make it more.

    For more information, please email Colleen: colleen.bolger@gmail.com

    The organisers would also like to invite anyone who is interested in forming a campaign group to organise further actions to defend Assange and Wikileaks to our first campaign meeting, Thursday 16 December at 6pm at Trades Hall, crn Victoria and Lygon Sts. All welcome.

    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=138917892829261&index=1

  • 13
    MLF
    Posted Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    I think more likely, Fairfax have ethical doubts about whether the cables should be published in this way — the volume of compromised diplomatic-in-confidence material being so far out of proportion to the amount of journalistic insight to be gained from studying them. I think Fairfax just don’t want to be the ones to make that call. They want the scoop, but not the ethical responsibility.”

    Interesting insight @Free.

    But I agree with others - you can’t just publish your take on the cables without releasing the cables themselves, it defeats the entire philosophy of Wikileaks. Fairfax messed this one up fo sure.

    And I know its anti-free information blah blah, but I do kinda like the fact that News was excluded from the party.

  • 14
    freecountry
    Posted Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Oh well, they’ve published them now. Thanks David Reid for the link.

    Having a bit of a browse, I’m getting a livelier and more interesting read on how the ALP works than I’ve seen from all the news media combined, at least in the years since the National Times closed down. Hardly any of it seems to be “Secret Squirrel” stuff that the press gallery couldn’t have put together.

    The difference I suppose is that governments require quality not quantity from their diplomatic reports, whereas the news media market, being advertising-driven (including the ABC which competes for ratings on commercial-broadcaster terms) is concerned with the exact opposite.

  • 15
    freecountry
    Posted Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    MLF: “I do kinda like the fact that News was excluded from the party.”

    - Exclusivity would have been a normal commercial condition for Fairfax’s cooperation. That’s what I mean, they are still stuck in the previous century thinking of “exclusive” in terms of access to information. They’re going to have to think up a more advanced kind of “exclusive” if they want to survive as a business model.

  • 16
    John Marlowe
    Posted Saturday, 18 December 2010 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Guy Rundle, I seem to be censored from your post ‘Cue the circus and the end of WikiLeaks as we know it’

    Is there a reason?

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...