Bank of America Buys Domains

In some form of preparation for what WikiLeaks may be releasing soon regarding Bank of America, they are buying a large number of domains, mostly in the style of either bank's name or a bank officer's name and a variety of derogatory terms, i.e., xxxblows, etc. I assume the idea is to keep other folks from taking over these domain names and creating anti-BOA sites, but I have to wonder about their strategy in this. Or maybe they just don't understand enough about search engines to realize that the domain name is only a small part of how search engines rank sites. But, knock yourselves out, B of A.

Which Way Goes Travolta?

There's a very long commentary, and I mean that in the sense of there being a lot of comments, on Salon discussing whether or not Carrie Fisher was wrong to have 'outed' John Travolta. As many have pointed out in their comments, Fisher's words were not exactly newsworthy, as there have been numerous stories about Travolta's alleged preferences over the years. Among the responses are those that say that Travolta should be left alone as he has never made an anti-gay stand, a response which is countered by those who note that his involvement with Scientology is, by itself, an anti-gay stand, given Scientology's well-known views about homosexuality.

I don't really have an opinion on Fisher's outage of Travolta, but I do think that his ties to Scientology are more likely to do more permanent damage to his box office potential than anything he might or might not be doing sexually. It was, after all, his Scientology connections that tied him to the winner of the Razzie award for the "Worst Movie of the Decade", Battlefield Earth, based on the sci-fi novel by Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard. At least John hasn't resorted to jumping on couches yet.

Reporting Advantages

With the judge allowing tweeting to take place from within the courtroom during Julian Assange's bail hearing, mainstream media will be lagging severely behind the blogosphere when it comes to reporting this story. An interesting twist to be sure, assuming, of course, that the mainstream media actually wants to cover this story. Perhaps they just want it to go away. Somehow, I just don't see that happening.

Assange Update

As I write this, Julian Assange's bail hearing is in process in the London court, and the Guardian is providing live updates. The judge has allowed tweets from the courtroom, so updates have been coming through rapidly. At this point, it appears that bail is a real possibility, and numerous individuals have stepped up with offers to cover the bail money, as well as providing other forms of support for WikiLeaks.

Moments later: Bail granted, with conditions. Next appearance will be January 11th.

WikiLeaks - The Ultimate Dirty Laundry Files

Normally, I focus on much older news, but the stories involving WikiLeaks and its head, Julian Assange, are, to my mind, simply too important and too large to ignore. As I read over some of the more recent news about WikiLeaks, I found myself wondering how my journalism professors from years ago would have suggested covering the stories that have emerged.

Much as we might like to believe in the concept of a free and balanced press, the reality is that, the press, throughout history, has probably never really achieved anything close to impartiality. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the content of news media is determined in some part by the views of higher editorial personnel, even if the agendas of such are not always clearly seen.

So just what is WikiLeaks? Here's what they say on their site:

WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.

Since its founding  in 2007, the WikiLeaks organization has released large amounts of formerly suppressed news, much of which has caused concern for various parties. In late October, there was a large release of files pertaining to the war in Iraq. In mid-November, a Swedish orders that Assange be detained as a result of an investigation into allegations of "of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."1 A European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange and he is currently in custody, having turned himself in to British authorities. A court date is scheduled for December 14. Though a Swedish prosecutor "was cited in newspaper Aftonbladet as saying the case was a personal matter and was not connected with his WikiLeaks work"2, the timing does seem to be a tad bit convenient, in light of the major release on November 28th of over a quarter million diplomatic cables. And, yes, that last statement is an editorial comment on my part.

In the days following his arrest, attempts have been made by various organizations to cut off the organization's funding donation sources and its ability to operate online. In retaliation, anonymous protesters have engaged in various forms of cyber warfare against some of these companies. Most recently, these protesting groups have focused their efforts into spreading the WikiLeaks released information. 

Some of the commentary on the WikiLeaks releases, now generally referred to as CableGate, has been dramatic, to say the least. At least one former Presidential candidate has called for Assange's execution, so it's clear that there are some very strong reactions to the WikiLeaks release of information.

It's difficult to be objective when looking at the issues raised by CableGate. On the one hand, there are certainly situations where suppression of certain types of information could be warranted under provisions of national security and defense. On the other side of the issue though is the notion of transparency and the fact that we have a current US administration that campaigned on a platform touting a promise of transparency and yet has fallen very far short of any form of transparency whatsoever. Traditionally, whistle-blowers and hard-core investigative journalists have served to shine the light into dark corners and, for the most part, those efforts have been applauded. Should we be looking at Assange and WikiLeaks in the same light? If the potential public exposure of clandestine operations makes such operations less likely to occur, is there truly a downside to increased transparency?

_______________________________
1 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B741R20101209
2 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B61PX20101208