Let's say the cables that WikiLeaks got hold of were sent to WSJ through this method, would they be willing to publish them and face the rath of the US Government?
(Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.)
> would they be willing to publish them and face the rath of the US Government?
Of course not. Wikileaks isn't solving a technical problem. They need to exist because traditional news agencies aren't willing to take the hit associated with releasing unflattering information. We saw what happened to financial businesses that dared to provide perfectly legal services to Wikileaks. Journalists who imitate Wikileaks can expect to be harassed, fired, or even prosecuted.
I find it ironic that so many traditional media figures bemoaned the loss of their "gatekeeper" role when the birther controversy was still monopolizing headlines. They have no trouble acting as a gatekeeper when journalism threatens the rich and powerful.
The Times and the Journal have both admitted to sitting stories, altering stories and burying facts at the behest of the United States Government. And I can only imagine that 'inflammatory' data about corporations who have a relationship with the Journal would be treated in a similar way.
In short: if publishing doesn't align with their best interests, they can be relied upon to not publish.
(Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.)
Well the US Government has yet to manage much in the way of actually going after wikileaks. The Wall St Journal has the advantage of falling under its jurisdiction.
But the answer is: no, I get the impression that the WSJ will be more circumspect about precisely what it publishes. On the other hand if the WSJ does publish your leaked documents they automatically get a lot of credibility. And if you leak documents to the WSJ and they refuse to publish you can always leak 'em to someone else.
On the other hand, it's not like Wikileaks is publishing things indiscriminately nowadays -- they're still sitting on a huge stash of diplomatic cables and releasing a few every time they feel like it. As I've said before, if I were the wikimedia foundation I'd be complaining pretty hard about the fact that Wikileaks isn't actually a Wiki any more.
Depends on whom they were embarrassing. If WSJ (owned by Murdoch) published something embarrassing to the Obama administration then the machinery of the left will spin it as "Oh, that wicked Fox News up to their usual tricks again".
It's amazing that you've come in and criticised "the left" for spinning something pointlessly, when in fact you're just spinning it right back at them, while nobody else had made this discussion in the slightest bit party-political.
I assumed that they would until I read this:
"If you upload or submit any Content, you represent to Dow Jones that you have all the necessary legal rights to upload or submit such Content and it will not violate any law or the rights of any person."
https://www.wsjsafehouse.com/terms.html
"Dow Jones retains sole discretion in deciding what to do, if anything, with the information received through SafeHouse. Dow Jones does not make any representations that the information provided through SafeHouse will be used or published in any form."
I don't imagine much fun information coming out of this.
In all seriousness, what do you expect to find in their TOS? What if I send them an email showing that one of my colleagues is sleeping with the boss. Are they going to guarantee it will get published? In the end it will come down to trust. If they act in a manner that wins the trust of whistleblowers, they'll get whistleblowing. I can't see any of the legalese affecting this one way or the other.
The words "Dow Jones" is enough for me to dismiss this, at least as a real competitor to Wikileaks. But sure, to be more serious, plenty of good information outside of their sphere of interest could still get released.
It allows them to sue the anonymous uploader for breach of contract or perjury or whatever if they want (which they don't), but it turns it the rights into the uploader's issue, not Dow Jones'.
(Alternatively, if they were to publish them, would the US Government be forced to respond differently to how they did with WikiLeaks, so as to not be seen as hindering free press? I'm sure in the public's eyes, going after WikiLeaks is a much smaller thing than going after a paper as big as WSJ.)