Emma Spencer
The leaking of the Panama papers has sparked a change in mainstream journalism, not only because of its massive size, but also because of its affects on the government and journalism outlets. The New York Times speaks to the fact that this leak has created a quicker governmental reaction than seen before, especially looking at the resignation of the prime minister of Iceland, which happened just 48 hours after the papers were leaked. Such a quick effect already shows the magnitude of this leak. This leak not only affected the government however, it also is changing the way journalists are handling leaks and stories of this size. The New York Times in the same article explains how this leak is aiding in the merging of the more conventional journalists with the blogger/hacker/activist journalist.
A main issue with leaks previously has been maintaining anominity to protect main actors within the leak, which in previous cases hasn't been done well and has created an unsafe space for leakers and journalists covering said leaks. Another part of what makes the Panama Paper leak so impressive is the incredible amount of security that is being kept. Another issue brought up within this article was the difference between the hacking into Sony compared to this, especially because it is unknown if the information in the Panama Papers was hacked or not. The argument made is that because this information relates to a public concern, it is more ethical and frankly more important.
This leak is also incredible due to the way is was shared with over 100 news organizations across the globe. However big names such as The New York Times weren't among this group of organizations to leak the information. The New Yorker speaks to the fact that this is because of the lack of exclusivity this leak brought, which made major American news corporations disinterested. This shows how differently, again, this leak is being handled within the press, not only using journalists across the world to help leak the information, but also the lack of interest this creates among big news rooms, shows the changing of the journalism sphere.
Works Cited
Lemann, N. (April 14, 2016). The Panama Papers and The Monster Stories of the Future. The New
Yorker. Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-panama-papers-and-
the-monster-stories-of-the-future
Rutenberg, J. (April 10, 2016). Panama Papers Leak Signals a Shift in Mainstream Journalim. The
New York Times. Retrieved from: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/business/
media/panama-papers-leak-signals-a-shift-in-mainstream-journalism.html?referer=
It's interesting that the New Yorker didn't leak the information due to the fact that is wasn't exclusive, making it not interesting for large American news corporations. The fact that so many journalists and other organizations had their hands on this leak before the New Yorker really goes to show the change in the journalism sphere. The idea that big American news corporations aren't the first source to break the news is a new change in the world of journalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the leak of the Panama Papers has definitely left a lasting imprint on the journalism sphere. It's extremely surprising to me considering, the size of this leak combined with the shocking and internationally relevant information the leak held that the source has still been able to remain anonymous. It just shows how far technology has come over the years.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete