WikiLeaks is a non-profit media outlet which was established in 2007 by Australian Internet Activist Julian Assange and The Sunshine Press organization. The goal of WikiLeaks is to mass publicize private, secret and classified information which is being withheld from the public at large. Although the organization has faced severe counterattacks in the form of law suits and threats, within one year it had already made public over 1.2 million private documents and this number has grown substantially since then.  But how does an organization like this work? It’s quite simple. WikiLeaks combines investigative journalism and top of the line security in an effort to bring information to the public. First, a source will voluntarily submit the leaked material in person, by mail or the most recommended option, through a secure, anonymous drop box. Next, WikiLeaks journalists analyze the information, verify it and a new story is formed. Finally, both the WikiLeaks news story and the original leaked material are published side by side on the website to prove to the reader what WikiLeaks is reporting on is authentic and viable. And so far, through this process WikiLeaks has been able to successful in verifying every document that it has sent out into the public.

When I think of WikiLeaks another organization called OpenLeaks comes to mind, which was established in 2010.  OpenLeaks has similar goals in mind as WikiLeaks and was inspired by much of its success. Their aim was to make the spreading of leaked material more widespread in a way that does not endanger the lives of those who wish to reveal information. However, they differ to WikiLeaks in that they do not receive or transmit any documents; instead they provide a platform for other networks of people to send out information that is vital to society.

In July 2010, 92,000 documents covering the war in Afghanistan to prominent newspapers such as The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. Then in October, in the largest leak of confidential information ever known, approximately 400,000 documents regarding the U.S treatment of Iraqi authorities surfaced. The leaked materials became known as the Iraq War Logs and told an astonishing story of war through the eyes of American soldiers. Among many other findings, the Iraq War Logs exposed that 15, 000 civilian deaths had not be reported by the US government and that US soldiers killed almost 700 civilians for coming too close to checkpoints. Not only that but they show how US authorities failed to investigate allegations regarding the rape, torture and abuse by the Iraqi police.

Much debate has been surrounding the question of whether WikiLeaks can be considered a journalistic organization. This presentation has taught me that WikiLeaks is in fact a form of investigative journalism and a good one at that. The very purpose of journalism is dig up dirt on issues that will interest the public regardless of any efforts to conceal the information. The fact that WikiLeaks has paired with major newspapers like The New York Times and their intense fact checking makes the War Logs legitimate. While some argue that WikiLeaks is a national security threat and others insist Assange is committing espionage, I believe that WikiLeaks is simply doing what needs to be done in revealing the bold truth behind war and that is worth the risks they take.

I enjoyed watching WikiRebels: The Documentary which takes a fascinating look at  how Wikileaks is having a profound effect on transparency and the way governments need to change how they release information. It includes interviews with Founder, Julian Assange and Co-Founder, Kristinn Hrafnsson as well as a number of analysts.

The Independent Media Centre, coined Indymedia or IMC, is an online citizen journalism platform devoted publishing grassroots and non-corporate news coverage that is of interest. It was founded on November 1999 as a means of providing up to date information to an online audience about what was what was occurring at Seattle’s WTO anti-globalization protests. According to their homepage, Indymedia is comprised of several independent news organizations and journalists all working towards “the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth” from a different standpoint. But from the start what set Indymedia apart from all other news sources of the time was that it provided citizens with the opportunity to pick and choose which articles should and should not appear on the site. The content is freely decided upon by the participant as well as the moderators who regulate the site. As Skyler and Maya pointed out in the video they made, the objective of Indymedia was brought about by the need for people to have the option of hearing from alternative news sources, not just from the mainstream news. This was deemed independent media and was the driving force behind the concept of citizen journalism and sprung into action hundreds of Indymedia outlets which are popping up worldwide.

Funded solely by donations, Indymedia has had an extensive impact on journalism. After the Indymedia coverage of the Seattle protests was hugely popular, people ran with this idea of having equal say and being able to criticize this precedent of objectivity that exists today in corporate media. It has encouraged independent journalists to set up their own citizen journalism networks. Additionally, it has facilitated global activism movements and provides a platform for transnational activism outreach. Most importantly, indymedia has raised awareness (minus all the sensationalizing that mainstream media throws in there) on many important issues. By January 2006, there were over 150 Indymedia websites globally distributing print, audio, photo and video media in virtually any language. Take a look at this Indymedia website based in the United Kingdom.

Despite its major contributions to the field of journalism, since its founding in 1999, Indymedia is losing the fight with its competitors. In the digital age, with the huge advancements that are being made in new media today with blogs, podcasts and social networking Indymedia is struggling to keep up to date. They are left to question whether there are better websites out there that offer a participatory aspect while still providing a platform for users to speak out against mainstream media. And the answer is Yes! Take a look at a couple independent news sources like Democracy Now!, Truthout and Freepress which seem to be more relevant to the times than Indymedia is. For example, Democracy Now is an award –winning news program that is broadcast on some television networks and radio stations as well as on the internet with its podcasts being the most popular on the web. It provides access, much like Indymedia, to alternate views from the perspectives of independent journalists, citizens, grassroots leaders and activists from all over the world. As well, in the age of Twitter and Facebook, it will become increasingly more difficult for Indymedia to stay relevant since people often turn to social media before anything else.

What I’ve learned from this presentation is that Indymedia was a major player the creation of participatory journalism. If it wasn’t for Indymedia and allowing their users to have a say in the articles, websites based on the same idea like The Drudge Report and Ohmynews couldn’t have existed.