Wikileaked. Now What? / from Mediapost

A little more than a year ago, I kicked off this column with an article called "Journalism Rocks." Now, after the Wikileaks fiasco, that headline could read "Journalism Rocked."

Wikileaks' "sharing" of some 90,000+ classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan has raised many sensitive issues, politically and from a media perspective. The most obvious of these is whether it is ethically correct to publish classified materials -- particularly if they could compromise national security. This is a polarizing question and one that divides journalistic opinion as to the very existence of sites like Wikileaks, which strives to remove all barriers to information (even the barrier of military classification).

Although the materials released by Wikileaks don't appear to have compromised national security -- yet -- they have cast a bigger shroud over the continued conduct of the war in Afghanistan, and likely further eroded public support for a desperately unpopular conflict. They have also highlighted the nature of media today and the role sites like Wikileaks play within it; the output of traditional media outlets and the so-called unvarnished, undigested, and importantly, un-vetted material put forward by new media and the blogosphere.

I see this contrast in terms of slant and opinion versus independently verifiable news, with accuracy and neutrality as valuation (and valuable) metrics. In this respect, information "dumps" like Wikileaks avoid the objection of being opinion masked as news and score high on neutrality, unlike the left-right media bias that has been swelling since the before the last election.

But as this leak has demonstrated, ensuring accuracy is a huge concern for news organizations everywhere. Wikileaks may twinkle with the glorification of democratized journalism, but it suffers from a profound lack of editorial superstructure that helps ensure accuracy and relevance.

Which is precisely what we have come to, and should, expect from our news sources.

To continue reading, click here.

Not for Love and Money

Earlier this week, I shared a link on my facebook page: “A Fool And His Money Are Soon Parted” after reading a ridiculous article in TIME Magazine about high-rollers stumping up $50,000-$100,000 to find a mate. Can money buy love? Ask any celebrity.


The service's pitch claims that the matchmaking “investment” could prevent them from a costly divorce, and that today people are just too busy to look for a mate. Personally, I find these arguments inherently flawed, for two reasons;

1. Anyone who lists income as a criteria for being matched (or not), is paving the path for a gold-digger. Show me a wealthy man who has found a match with a woman NOT looking for a wealthy mate. True love? Show me the pre-nup, I say!

2. Furthermore, if you are too busy to find a mate yourself, you are probably too busy to have a healthy, fulfilling relationship – mentally, spiritually and physically.


Finding a life companion isn't about matching multiple choice questions and answers, or colour by numbers. Paying someone to take away the responsibility (and in many cases, heartache) of finding the right partner is a guaranteed way – in my mind at least – of NOT finding the right person.


Of course, this is just my opinion. I have not polled any high-rollers or couples who have met through elite matchmakers. But still.


And for the rest of you without a spare $100,000 to spend on lurve, there is MeetMoi, http://www.meetmoi.com/welcome - a new “proximity based dating application.” Proximity may be a criteria to interact, but it really doesn't sound very sexy, does it?


Okay. I am off to contact the MeetMoi founders about helping with their messaging (read the press release they issued yesterday and you'll see what I mean). Then I’m going to test out this concept on my phone - for research purposes only as I’m married.