Using WikiLeaks as a Source for Article

CrastersBabies · Apr 23, 2015

May seem a silly question, but I've seen a lot of magazines directly quoting sources from Wikileaks (e.g. the hacked Sony emails). Or summarizing content.

Anyone have their finger on the pulse of publication "ethics" when it comes to citing material that WAS private but is NOW made public?

The damage is already done, but should a writer worry about perpetuating MORE damage by rehashing sensitive material?

Legal Eagles out there?

Haggis · Apr 23, 2015

I figure WikiLeaks is at least as reliable as Wikipedia. Which means it might well be brought up in P&CE, but the reliability of citation might well be questioned.

CrastersBabies · Apr 23, 2015

I agree that there might be authenticity issues here.

But also wondering about harm and damages as well.

Deepthought · Apr 23, 2015

I think the answer is: it depends. For example, it the harm is to a company/government/military organization simply because they did some stupid thing and want to keep their dirty secret private, well, fair game. They never should have done that unethical stuff in the first place. But, on the other hand, if they have something like a trade secret or some confidential information that provides them with an advantage and is ethical, then those things should be kept as quiet as possible.

cornflake · Apr 23, 2015

What kind of harm and damages to whom and what legal issues are you addressing? I mean you're talking about news orgs, right? So it's kind of moot?

Using WikiLeaks as a Source for Article

CrastersBabies

Burninator!

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua

CrastersBabies

Burninator!

Deepthought

Think hard, often

cornflake

practical experience, FTW