WikiLeaks paradigm: Explaining on the Web

Alert Email Print

By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The new paradigm of WikiLeaks will help redefine journalism in the 21st century.

Remember, back when the New York Times and then the Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers scoops four decades ago, the media were on the defensive. The exclusives appeared to raise as many questions about the journalistic process as they did about the contents of the controversial report:

How did these findings come to light? Were the media acting unpatriotically by distributing the news? Could they -- or, more to the point, shouldn't they -- be prosecuted for committing crimes against the government? Did the journalists, in fact, endanger national security?

Laying out the origins of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers revelation was explosive -- and quite scary as well. Before anybody had ever heard of the Watergate scandal that was yet to come, the Nixon White House seemed all-powerful.

The Washington Post Co. /quotes/nls/wpo (WPO 376.41, +2.73, +0.73%) had just gone public, and its executives fretted that the government could crush its stock's prospects on Wall Street. They were prudent to worry.

Things seem so different now, thanks to the advent of the Internet. Look at the New York Times's move to publish details of "a six-year archive of classified military documents that was obtained by an organization called WikiLeaks." Read New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller's responses to reader questions.

The documents encompass 2004 to 2009 and show American military troops "as being starved for resources and battling an insurgency that was getting larger and better coordinated year by year," according to the Times on Monday. The Times, as well as the German publication Der Spiegel and The Guardian newspaper in London, received access to the report.

Providing perspective

Yes, the contents of the report are going to be discussed for years to come. But looking beneath the surface a bit, one of the revealing aspects of this development is that the Times is able to employ the Internet to help explain the story to readers. On Monday, the Times's website published a long list of questions from the public. The paper proceeded to answer them.

All too often, we journalists are willingly held captive by the often counter productive demands of today's 24/7 news cycle. We are content to publish a story that purports to break news -- however small or trivial it might actually be -- and then move on to the next one without providing context or analysis.

This is a new model for American journalism. Call it the Web Explainer, if you like.

Increasingly, the media are answering readers' questions online, as a way to build stronger bridges to the outside world. It's a smart, useful idea. It doesn't cost the companies anything and it does in fact contribute to a sense of goodwill.

A story as provocative as WikiLeaks can prove to be a tipping point. From now on, every media organization may feel compelled to offer a tool to explain its journalistic process. It's quite possible that the public will demand nothing less than to have news organizations explain why they've published certain stories.

And you know what? It's about time the media were more accountable to their audiences. It would do a lot of good for journalists to explain more about how they got their stories.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Times itself was blamed widely for publishing stories that contributed to fostering a pro-war atmosphere in the U.S.

As a reader and voracious media consumer, I've been mystified why newspapers, magazines, Internet operations and broadcasting organizations don't tell their back stories on a regular basis.

Newsgathering details

The audience might just be fascinated to learn more about the details of the news-gathering process, especially in such rare moments in time as Hurricane Katrina and the crisis in Haiti. When I encounter someone who has interviewed the president in the White House, I'm as curious about the reporter's observations as I am about the head of state's statements.

It boils down to this point: The media must become more accountable as a way to remain relevant.

MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Would you like to see the media provide more tools to explain how they got their stories in the first place?

Jon Friedman is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in New York.