http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...military-leaks
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...708314,00.html

WikiLeaks has released their massive trove of internal government documents, mostly about the war in Afghanistan. They collaborated with newspapers to release articles about the documents at the same time just now.

While I respect WikiLeak's mission, I think releasing the documents on embargo to a variety of [sympathetic] news organizations pushes this too much into a media stunt. It's clear that publications such as the NYT and the Guardian want this to be the next "Pentagon Papers" that permanently changes how the public see the war in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, when you pull a media stunt like this and clue-in all the big players, you start to get a lot of spin and you lose the ability to see how governments respond with advance notice. EG the White House already has a pretty lame line in place:

In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...military-leaks
Pasting the NYTimes note to readers below. I think they are overall trying to be as scrupulous and responsible as can be when publishing information about detailed classified info. But I also think they (and all the publications involved) are very eagerly and jointly playing into a game with a very clear objective that makes me uncomfortable as a consumer of media.


July 25, 2010
Piecing Together the Reports, and Deciding What to Publish

The articles published today are based on thousands of United States military incident and intelligence reports — records of engagements, mishaps, intelligence on enemy activity and other events from the war in Afghanistan — that were made public on Sunday on the Internet. The New York Times, The Guardian newspaper in London, and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the material several weeks ago. These reports are used by desk officers in the Pentagon and troops in the field when they make operational plans and prepare briefings on the situation in the war zone. Most of the reports are routine, even mundane, but many add insights, texture and context to a war that has been waged for nearly nine years.

Over all these documents amount to a real-time history of the war reported from one important vantage point — that of the soldiers and officers actually doing the fighting and reconstruction.

The Source of the Material

The documents — some 92,000 individual reports in all — were made available to The Times and the European news organizations by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing secrets of all kinds, on the condition that the papers not report on the data until July 25, when WikiLeaks said it intended to post the material on the Internet. WikiLeaks did not reveal where it obtained the material. WikiLeaks was not involved in the news organizations’ research, reporting, analysis and writing. The Times spent about a month mining the data for disclosures and patterns, verifying and cross-checking with other information sources, and preparing the articles that are published today. The three news organizations agreed to publish their articles simultaneously, but each prepared its own articles.

Classified Information

Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, and after weighing the risks and public interest, we sometimes chose not to publish. But there are times when the information is of significant public interest, and this is one of those times. The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not.

Most of the incident reports are marked “secret,” a relatively low level of classification. The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests. The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose — either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material — anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports. We have avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods such as communications intercepts. We have not linked to the archives of raw material. At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.

Verification

To establish confidence in the information, The Times checked a number of the reports against incidents that had been publicly reported or witnessed by our own journalists. Government officials did not dispute that the information was authentic.

It is sometimes unclear whether a particular incident report is based on firsthand observation, on the account of an intelligence source regarded as reliable, on less trustworthy sources or on speculation by the writer. It is also not known what may be missing from the material, either because it is in a more restrictive category of classification or for some other reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/wo...tors-note.html