Now Assange, Superleaker, wants "financial compensation" for his leaks

[pnwmom]

under "certain circumstances."

What's up with that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905421.html

"But the Times wasn't on WikiLeaks' list of original recipients. The newspaper got its hands on the trove of about 250,000 cables thanks to the Guardian newspaper of Great Britain, which quietly passed the Times the raw material that it had received as one of five news organizations favored by WikiLeaks.

"WikiLeaks had worked with the Times this summer in releasing about 90,000 documents prepared by U.S. military sources about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"But the group pointedly snubbed the Times this time around, offering the State Department cables to two other American news outlets, CNN and the Wall Street Journal. Both turned WikiLeaks down, deciding that its terms - including a demand for financial compensation under certain circumstances - were unacceptable."

[HEyHEY]

1. Wow, it was less than an hour ago I said this is gonna be the next thing he does

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. (edited by author to remove snark)

Sorry about that, HeyHey.

[HEyHEY]

73. Yeah, I finished reading the piece

Doesn't change anything I said downthread about how news tips are dealt with. I'd like to see more of these "conditions" though.

[sabrina 1]

91. You need to read the facts. They did NOT ask for compensation

for the leaks, they had an agreement that if anyone jumped the gun by releasing the information early, they would pay what was the equivalent of a 'fine'.

So, it seems you are wrong.

[HEyHEY]

92. You need to read the post above, where I corected myself

Making your post wrong.

[niyad]

2. this, of course, vitiates whatever good assange has done, right?

[bluedigger]

5. What "good" has he done?

[niyad]

28. pulling back the curtain is a good thing. not that most of us are surprised by the sheer hypocricy

of the world's govt's, though

[NorthCarolina]

90. How about this for starters......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x573159

[pnwmom]

7. What good has he done exactly? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

3. If the news organization broke the embargo, they would have to pay Wikileaks $100,000.

It was not payment for the information, but paying for breaking the stories before anyone else. I don't think the Guardian slipping the cables to the New York Times qualifies, but it could.

[abelenkpe]

4. Yeah people with stories shouldn't be compensated

Look we know you don't approve of wikileaks and are bent on smearing them. But this is pathetic. Really. Reporters with big news stories shouldn't expect to be compensated. Yeah. Right. I'm sure that's how it works for every one with a big scoop. If you want money for your story it must be a nefarious plot.

[pnwmom]

11. Reporters get paid salaries. He's not a reporter.

And reputable news organizations (non- National Enquirer type organizations) have long refused to pay for their stories, on ethical grounds.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. +1

Next they'll be trotting out some bullshit about Assange only being in it for the money and expecting us all to blindly swallow whatever they say...

[HEyHEY]

14. Umm... actually... in this case he's not writing the stories, just providing tips

And reporters don't pay for news tips.

[EFerrari]

29. Try reading either the story or the thread.

There was no demand to pay for news tips. It eas a stipulation that violating an embargo would cost the outlet.

[HEyHEY]

31. I did read the story... and guess what? Financial penalties for an embargo breaking

Is something I've never heard of before. Also, I was responding to the post above, not to the OP.

[EFerrari]

37. I always wondered how they worked, too.

But this clearly isn't Wikileaks asking to be paid for their material.

[HEyHEY]

41. I'd like to see more of the conditions applied

[Kalyke]

96. Times change.

I was a reporter. I have often been tipped and told to wait. I abided by it. If I had broken said "embargo," I wouldn't have been fined, but I can see why I could have been had I done it. It's really no biggie.

[emulatorloo]

16. read the whole article if you get the chance, it is kind of interesting.

[donco6]

6. The actual arrangement, just so people have the facts.

"WikiLeaks asked CNN and the Wall Street Journal to sign confidentiality agreements that would have entitled WikiLeaks to a payment of around $100,000 if the partner broke the embargo, according to people briefed on the agreement who asked not to be named because they weren't authorized to disclose the information publicly. The agreement also stipulated that WikiLeaks could enforce the terms of the agreement in a court of WikiLeaks' choosing."

Just to keep things honest.

[leftstreet]

15. Thanks for posting that n/t

[sudopod]

19. Brace for being unnoticed! nt

[HEyHEY]

25. I've never heard of an embargo upheld by financial penalties

And I've been in the business almost a decade.

[donco6]

39. I have. n/t

[Karmadillo]

81. But we don't want the facts!!! Stop it!!!

nt

[LostInAnomie]

8. Come to the US and try to sue them, asshole.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. again, reading is your friend

I understand that knee-jerk reactions can be more satisfying than reading, at least in the short term. But it makes you look so ridiculous to anyone who took the 3 minutes required to actually r-e-a-d the article. Get back with me after you've shed your ignorance.

[LostInAnomie]

75. Yeah, I'll stick with what I said.

The Time printed without his permission or the $100,000 he was shopping around for. If he doesn't like it, he's free to try to sue.

Fuck him.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. You're kind of embarrassing yourself

It's willful ignorance you're displaying. You won't read the article. You're responding to things that were never said. He wasn't shopping around for $100K. He was never going to sue in the US if a lawsuit was necessary. This information was available at the link to all of us who happen to be literate. Way to teabag an issue.

[LostInAnomie]

82. Did you even read the article?

"WikiLeaks asked CNN and the Wall Street Journal to sign confidentiality agreements that would have entitled WikiLeaks to a payment of around $100,000 if the partner broke the embargo, according to people briefed on the agreement who asked not to be named because they weren't authorized to disclose the information publicly. The agreement also stipulated that WikiLeaks could enforce the terms of the agreement in a court of WikiLeaks' choosing. "

CNN and the WSJ both turned him down because they wouldn't agree to his terms.

I said he's free to try to sue the NYT because they printed without his permission (as stated in the article). He's also free to come to the US to try to do it.

I'd like to actually hear what you think the article is actually talking about? My guess is you don't have a clue.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

85. I've read the article. It's clear you don't understand what's been printed

This is a clause in a contract. If CNN/WSJ had signed, and had stuck to their end of the deal, no penalty would have been assessed. This is an incentive for the organizations not to leak the story early in an attempt to one-up their competition at the other papers. That's exactly what it means. It's not really a point of debate. The OP wrote a shitty post title and wouldn't back down from it. That assertion has been thoroughly debunked. It's an if/then clause in a contract. This story in no way says that he was shopping the story around looking for money. I'm not sure how to make that any more elemental than that. It's written in what you've excerpted above, and it's written clearly. You do know what an embargo is, right? In this case, it means Assange was saying "CNN, WSJ, you can publish these leaks, but only after signing these papers saying that you will not release them before I say it's cool to release them, or substantial penalties will apply". You get that now, right? I have concerns that I'm not reaching you, but I just can't make the building blocks any more basic. I do get that you're not fond of me--no crime there. You may want to run this story by someone you do trust, and ask them about what they glean from what's being said, and I am confident that they'll come to the same conclusion about what is and isn't printed in the story (irrespective of how any of us feels about Assange in general).

[thunder rising]

52. Because the duped really hate having transparency in government. We demand to be kept ignorant

That's why our education system is so bad.

[LostInAnomie]

78. Duped to what? It's not like Assange broke anything that we didn't already know.

That's what I don't get about the Assange fan club, for some reason they think the wikileaks revelations are earth shattering. If anything they are gossipy crap that anyone with half a brain could have figured out.

Wow! Israel is trying to persuade us to attack Iran!!! No way!!

No Way! China is annoyed by NK!! That's blowing my mind!

Holy Shit! Gaddafi has a big boobed nurse and Prince Andrew is an asshole!!! GEEEZZZZ!!!

The hero worship by the keyboard radicals is a fucking joke.

[thunder rising]

88. Then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

[AngryAmish]

9. Assange=TMZ=Deadspin

What photos of Favre's cock does he leak next?

[emulatorloo]

10. The whole article is very interesting, thanks for posting the link.

EOM

[sudopod]

13. No paypal-style service will deal with them due to government pressure.

The newspaper is going to make money off putting this stuff in their publications a few days ahead of the general release, so why not use it to keep the tubes running?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. reading is your friend

From your own link:

WikiLeaks asked CNN and the Wall Street Journal to sign confidentiality agreements that would have entitled WikiLeaks to a payment of around $100,000 if the partner broke the embargo, according to people briefed on the agreement who asked not to be named because they weren't authorized to disclose the information publicly. The agreement also stipulated that WikiLeaks could enforce the terms of the agreement in a court of WikiLeaks' choosing.

This is just contract language. Assange said, in effect, CNN & WSJ, if you lie to me and release this prematurely, it will cost you $100K. That's not financial compensation, and you're either careless with your reading or disingenuous. Which is it?

[Incitatus]

21. Thanks for clarifying the OP's misleading statements. nt

[pnwmom]

24. They were quotes from the article, not my own statements. n/t

[donco6]

26. You purposely arranged them to mislead.

But that's not at all surprising.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. are you ready to disavow your thoroughly repudiated post title?

It would lend you more credibility if you went with the excuse that you just missed that part while reading, and as a result, you take it back now. You still don't have to like Julian Assange and you can try to find other ways of hitting him, but this exploratory tangent has come to its conclusion. The premise of your thread title is completely wrong, and a person with any sense of ethics would admit as much.

[donco6]

46. Ergo, that one will never admit it. n/t

[thewiseguy]

Intentionally I may add. Given OP's prior threads regarding Wikileaks.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Unrec for distortion

[leftstreet]

23. +1

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Wow

Knew it.

[EFerrari]

22. It doesn't look like quid pro quo but as an incentive not to break an embargo

as you could have seen were you interested in anything but smearing Assange.

WikiLeaks asked CNN and the Wall Street Journal to sign confidentiality agreements that would have entitled WikiLeaks to a payment of around $100,000 if the partner broke the embargo, according to people briefed on the agreement who asked not to be named because they weren't authorized to disclose the information publicly. The agreement also stipulated that WikiLeaks could enforce the terms of the agreement in a court of WikiLeaks' choosing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905421.html

[HEyHEY]

27. I've never heard of this

Financial compensation if an embargo is broken kind of rule. Makes me wonder.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. Then you've never read a business contract. Next.

.

[PBS Poll-435]

40. If the purpose is to get important information to the public, why a business contract at all?

Somebody is getting paid somewhere.

[donco6]

44. Contracts are sometimes created to keep people playing fair.

If they wanted all the parties who'd been given the info to share the info simultaneously, and not jump the gun on one another, a contract would be essential. And a financial penalty for jumping the gun would just make it very easy to understand.

[PBS Poll-435]

48. Then this is not whistle-blowing at all. It is more of a controlled seepage.

But Mission Accomplished! Wikileaks stays in the news for another day...

[EFerrari]

60. It's a very informed kind of whistleblowing where you don't walk in

to the Feds' offices, spill your guts and wind up in jail while the perps get off -- like that guy in Switzerland who turned in thousands of names of Americans hiding money and wound up being the only one to do time.

[donco6]

63. The only option is to give one news outlet an exclusive.

I don't think Assange wanted that. He wants it released from multiple outlets all at once. Call it what you want, but it's actually very sophisticated and complicated.

[HEyHEY]

67. Yeah, something like this HAS to go to many places

Just to ensure it's covered properly.

[PBS Poll-435]

70. I disagree, but that's ok.

This whole episode seems over-hyped and bizarre.

[HEyHEY]

43. News tips aren't a business deal. NEXT

[Gold Metal Flake]

49. News is a commodity. Always has been. NEXT

[HEyHEY]

53. Yes, but no one ever pays for the tips. Next

But what the fuck would I know about it,right?

[Gold Metal Flake]

64. You are wrong. They do. But this story is not about paying for tips. NEXT

Please, you ain't the only one who is or has been "in the biz" skippy.

[HEyHEY]

65. I am not wrong

I am in fact very right. And if you've worked for a paper that paid for tips it couldn't have been a reputable one.

[Gold Metal Flake]

68. You are wrong. But you have an agenda. I get that.

So knock yourself out.

[HEyHEY]

69. Oh yes, everyone who disagrees with you or your new hero "has an agenda"

I couldn't care less of a flying fuck about Assange or his reputation. I'm just a guy on a discussion board, DISCUSSING something. I clearly see your way to derail the discussion is the usual crap about me having an agenda. After that what is it?

- "Your true colours are showing"

- "That's a strawman argument"

- "Stop trying to divert the topic"

- "You're a troll"

Any others? take a hike.

[Gold Metal Flake]

71. No, I'm just reading your posts in this thread.

[HEyHEY]

79. Well, if it's common practise, then why didn't assange ask for money outright?

[Gold Metal Flake]

84. You are still pushing the false narrative established in the misleading OP thread title.

[HEyHEY]

86. Our conversation has nothing to do with the OP, we were discussing paying for news

Now, answer my question; "If it is common practise to pay for news tips, then why didn't Assange outright ask for money for these cables?"

[Gold Metal Flake]

87. Nice question. Unanswerable, as you know, since I can not put it to Assange.

You are not in media.

[HEyHEY]

89. Really? Well you can ask about 30 duers I know personally to back that up

And that question is answerable... "Because selling news tips is unethical"

Just admit you're wrong.

[Gold Metal Flake]

93. The question, and your hypothetical answer, persists in pushing the OP's false meme.

So now I see what kind of "media" you are employed in. Fox much.

[HEyHEY]

97. Get a life

that's the last I have to say to you.

[Gold Metal Flake]

98. I'll just refer readers to your posts above where you support the OPs misleading thread title.

The sad state of media today exemplified.

[HEyHEY]

99. Then you can also reference them to the part where I revised

The sad state of your brain exemplified.

[Gold Metal Flake]

100. Shuffling chairs, eh Foxy?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. yeah? Tell it to CNN, WSJ, NYT, and Der Spiegel

Guess which 2 of the 4 sites listed above got a lot more ad revenue this week? This news tip was one hell of a business deal. And in business deals, secured by contracts, penalties are imposed for players who don't follow the rules. This is how business is done. You're usually such an erudite guy, you're making me wonder if you're being obtuse on purpose. There's no "there" in this story, and sometimes you just have to say so. If you hate Assange, there are plenty of other directions from which to attack him. This pretty clearly isn't one of them. This contract penalty-as-compensation line of reasoning isn't even up to the standards of a Fox morning show.

[HEyHEY]

62. Well, despite your opinion, the fact remains

Most papers and stations consider paying for news tips to be unethical. That's my point.

I don't hate Assange, I just don't trust him yet. But, the not paying for tips was more directly related to the above comment not the OP.

As for this OP, I find the whole thing very curious. I've never heard of these types of conditions before, and wonder if there's a motive.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

76. Thanks, HeyHey

Thanks for the explanation, and I'm sorry if I got a little overheated (I did). As to the motive, it seems to me like he just wanted to control the exact release date/time, without the media circus that would happen if one of the outlets leaked first. I could be wrong about this, of course, but that seemed like the simplest explanation.

Thank you for the reply.

[donco6]

33. It's always an implied threat when info is embargoed.

When someone is willing to share information to multiple sources, but wants the info to be released simultaneously by all, they stipulate an embargo. The implied threat is that they'll sue the offender for breaking the embargo. This arrangement simply spells out the penalty. It's not really that unusual. The option is to give some news outlet the exclusive and they release asap.

[HEyHEY]

45. I've still never had an implied threat or anything

I've been given stories with embargoes as well. Usually it was just implied that if you break it, you'll never get another scoop from that source again.

[PBS Poll-435]

51. The irony of all of this is that this is not a hidden source. We know where it is coming from

Deep Throat this is not.

[HEyHEY]

58. Yeah, I do find this strange.

Can't put my finger on it though. Maybe he's just heavy handed.

[donco6]

66. When the significance of the info increases, so does the threat.

It may have been a matter of personal safety for Assange to demand compliance. I don't blame him.

[EFerrari]

34. It's not a demand for compensation **for the story**

as the OP very misleadingly suggested.

[PBS Poll-435]

36. It is common in the tech world, but seems strange in this context

If the goal is to get the information out there, why not just get it out there?

[Luminous Animal]

50. To keep ahead of the spinmeisters. The NY Times conferred with the admin every step of the way.

If they had published early, they could have, in collaboration with the government, attempted to control the message before the other news agencies and wikileaks itself had time to respond.

[PBS Poll-435]

57. And I could have slipped in the shower today

Thankfully my contract kept that from happening.

[Luminous Animal]

72. Did you make a contract with your tub?

[PBS Poll-435]

74. Just a no-compete agreement

:P

[Better Believe It]

30. Let the smear and character assassination campaign begin!

[Luminous Animal]

54. With flat out disprovable lies, no less.

[TexasObserver]

35. It's time to rent clothes and wear ashes on our heads.

Of course, your information is a gross distortion of the facts, but Hey, it's something to say!

[Arkana]

55. What the fuck?

If he really wanted to do the right thing, why the hell did he attach a price tag to it?

[EFerrari]

61. He didn't. The OP is misrepresenting.

Read the article or the thread.

[Bluebear]

94. A real bee in her bonnet for some reason.

[Zanzobar]

56. They're gonna fry the poor kid

On the face of it, he deserves the hole. Too bad he didn't have a better advisor.

Idealism is a bitch.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

80. Gee. You have had plenty of time to edit your OP.

If you had any self respect, you would ask for this thread to be locked.

[HEyHEY]

83. It'd be nice to see it set up as a co-op. n/t

[grasswire]

95. alerted

the title is misleading and potentially libelous.