All The President's Platforms: Enabling whistleblowers in a new digital reality

(1)

Enabling whistleblowers in a new digital reality

“All The President’s Platforms”

Claire Gersen 10873368

Master thesis

New Media and Digital Culture University of Amsterdam June 29th, 2018

Supervisor: prof. dr. Robin Boast Second reader: dr. Esther Weltevrede

(2)

'War crimes, mass surveillance, torture: some of the biggest stories in modern history relied on whistleblowers in national security and intelligence agencies. They came forward at great risk to expose

the truth. Their revelations illuminated shadowy corruption of our most fundamental values, our most cherished rights and the integrity of our core democratic institutions.'

~

Jesselyn Radack

Human rights attorney, Director of the Whistleblower & Source Protection Program at ExposeFacts and herself a whistleblower on government misconduct in the case of John Walker Lindh.

(3)

Preface

A friend once told me I am an idealist and that has been a proud part of my coat of arms. So when it was said that this might be the last time we have the freedom to write on a subject we are passionate about, I choose freedom of speech. To me, this is one of our most important rights and it needs not only to be defended, but continuously cultivated in this new technological reality.

(4)

Abstract

Contemporary technological advancements have created a reality in which surveillance is increasingly an issue. As the hostility towards whistleblowers has not diminished, their practice needs to adapt to the new environment. A whistleblower platform poses a way to enable the practice of whistleblowing in this digital era. To reach this goal it needs to have the perfect form so that whistleblowers, journalists and technologists can work with the platform. However, these groups have distinct social imaginaires and require different things to satisfy their needs. To understand how these social imaginaires of journalists and technologists shape a whistleblower platform, the structure has been approached using the concept of ‘boundary objects’. It was found that journalists use the platform as a source of information and would prefer a decentralized shape, while technologists interact most with the security features of the platform and see the benefits of a centralized form. Additionally, both social imaginaires maintain the value ‘public interest’, but understand this concept differently as ‘information transparency’ and ‘providing citizens with relevant information’. This disparity causes tension, which is an obstacle for the platform to perform optimally. As such a whistleblower platform needs more consensus between its affiliated social imaginaires to enhance its impact on society and enable whistleblowers in a new digital reality.

KEYWORDS: whistleblower, journalism, open source software, boundary object, social imaginaire, Publeaks.

(5)

Introduction

'And when Graham finally risks everything to say, 'Let's go. Let's go. Let's publish,' you may want to stand up and cheer.' (The Rolling stone, 2017)

'It’s the sort of chaotic, absurd moment on which history really does turn.' (The guardian, 2017)

This is how movie critics describe the scene in which Katherine Graham, portrayed by Meryl Streep in the 2017 Spielberg movie_{The Post,}

decides to publish the _{Pentagon Papers in her family’s newspaper.} Her single phone call combines Daniel Ellsberg’s information on the United States’ involvement in Vietnam and the journalistic ambitions of Ben Bradlee and Ben Bagdikian into a news publication. It is the moment in whichThe Washington Post

decides to provide the citizens of the United States with the harsh truth.

The leaking of the US military report United states - Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense

by Daniel Ellsberg, can be defined as an act of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is a term that generally refers to a specific kind of information sharing, in which information about misconduct is disclosed in the interest of the common good (Jubb 77). As the practice is defined as being in the interest of the public, enabling whistleblowers should be something to strive for. However, even in current societies that are labelled ‘democratic,’ whistleblowers are often met with hostility; facing defamation, abuse and sometimes even prosecution (Jubb 78). So to cultivate this practice and ensure such a flow of information, it is necessary to examine ways to provide adequate protection for whistleblowers.

Contemporary technological advancement has created an environment in which whistleblowing - in the way Ellsberg did in 1970, is no longer possible. He was able to take the document, consisting of 47 volumes, out of his safe at work in small fragments, photocopy it after work, conceal its top secret classification by cutting off the bottom and top of each the pages and secretly meet journalists in out of the way motels to have it published (McCurdy 125-127). Today the document would probably only exist digitally. Copying would be a security risk as technology is able to create and identify a copy machine’s unique fingerprint and a cellphone's geographical tag would reveal the location and attendees of every secret motel meeting. As the ability to track information and people is enhanced through technology, there is a growing the need for safe whistleblowing practices to keep up with this technological reality.

(7)

One attempt to satisfy this need can be found in whistleblower platforms. While Wikileaks might be most popularly associated with this term, it does not represent common practice or even refers to itself as a ‘whistleblower platform’. More closely akin to Daniel Ellsberg’s way of whistleblowing is the procedure facilitated by GlobaLeaks

software. This open-source, free software aims to make communication between two parties as secure and anonymous as possible, so that safe whistleblowing remains possible in the digital world ( Globaleaks.org). However, if such a platform can really create an impact and enhance the contemporary whistleblower practices, depends on the extend with which it satisfies the needs of the people working with the platform.

As whistleblowing enters the digital world, the relationship with its environment changes. Revisiting the Pentagon Papers,

the act of whistleblowing from seizing the data, to this information reaching the public, consisted of three main actors: the whistleblower, Ellsberg; the journalists, among which Bradlee and Bagdikian; and Graham as the publisher of the newspaper. But since then the dynamic has changed. With the introduction of whistleblower platforms, or any other digital technological structure for that matter, a new actor has come into play: the technologist. The public service that whistleblowing can be, informing citizens about wrongdoing, is no longer solely enabled by the motivations of the whistleblower and media, but also by the ambitions of the technologists behind the platform. Separate social groups that will all need to work with the whistleblower platform, to create a positive impact in the public interest. Each of these social groups have shared practices, values and norms, which sets them apart from others. This common sense of legitimacy is referred to by sociologist Charles Taylor as a social imaginaire (Taylor 106). So to protect and maybe even cultivate whistleblowing as a practice in the public interest, it is important to examine in what way the social imaginaires of journalists and technologists interact with, and subsequently shape a whistleblower platform.

Journalism, as depicted by Tom Hanks in The Post,

no longer exists. Recent technological

advancements instigated a move beyond newspapers as the main journalistic stage and shifted into an arena where data journalism, multimedia productions and vloggers compete for the spotlight. These developments created a journalistic field with a diversified competition and diminishing job security, defined as a precarious environment (Deuze and Witschge 171). While one could presume that this would lead to a softening of the standards as to include new possibilities, the opposite is the case. Because of the precarity of the job, journalists strengthen their commitment to their value system, staking out the boundaries of its social imaginaire (Deuze and Witschge 176). In contrast to the relatively long history of journalism, the social imaginaire of the technologists is in its infancy. Originating from the Free Software movement of the eighties, open-source software technologists aim to provide society

(8)

with software of which anyone can access and modify the source code, which they deem morally desirable. Because of this aspect of the software, it is nearly impossible to make money building it, disqualifying financial gain as a motivator for the work (Stewart and Gosain 2006). Comparable to journalism, this creates an environment where the social imaginaire built on shared values, which provide the main motivation to work with a whistleblower platform.

There are different ways to analyze the manner in which these social imaginaires of journalists and technologists interact with whistleblower platforms. When the problem is conceptualized and put in abstract terms, one could state that it is about the interaction between technology and two distinct human actors. This opens up a range of theoretical approaches. Latour’s _{actor-network theory (ANT),} but also Norbert Elia’s concept of figurations

, Peter Galison’strading zones and Gina Neff and Peter

Nagy’simagined affordances

have been used for research into new media and digital culture. However, to encompass the interaction of two distinct social imaginaires as a shaping factor in the structure of technology, whistleblower platforms are approached using Susan Leigh Star’s concept of _boundary

objects

. This concept distinguishes itself because it does not assume consensus between social groups affiliated with the technology. It advances the analysis from the scanty declaration that journalists and technologists have different interpretations, into an in-depth analysis of the understanding and operationalization of their social imaginaire in relation to a whistleblower platform, which makes its possible to examine the way they shape the platform itself. Usingboundary objects

as an approach to

the analysis of whistleblower platforms not only adds to the existing knowledge on the practice of whistleblowing, it also contributes to the body of work exploring the academic application of the sociological concept _{boundary objects}

within media studies and digital culture.

To study the way in which the social imaginaires of journalists and technologists shape whistleblowing platforms as a boundary object, a case study is done. Since 2012, 45 whistleblower platforms all over the world have been created using GlobaLeaks software, among which is the Dutch whistleblower platform _{Publeaks.nl (Globaleaks.org). Publeaks.nl}

provides the infrastructure to share

information which 18 different Dutch media organizations in a way that aims to be both secure and anonymous. As this is GlobaLeaks’ first whistleblower platform that caters to more than one media organization and it is in close proximity to the Amsterdam based researcher, this platform seemed the most suitable subject for this study. The case study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with journalists and technologists affiliated withPubleaks.nl.

The records of these interviews are used for a

qualitative analysis for which an inductive method is adopted, directed by three notions of a boundary object: distinction between two social groups, the work of these social groups with the boundary object and the fluidity of the object looking for its perfect state (Star 605). Subsequently, the thesis carefully

(9)

explores conflicts within the overlapping work of journalists and technologists with the whistleblowers platform, which Star refers to as areas of tension. With this methodAll The President’s Platforms

aims to

uncover how the distinct social imaginaires shape Publeaks.nl

as a boundary object.

Whistleblowing is a core concept in the Post.

This thesis aspires to alter their embellished

historic memoir into contemporary academic literature, with the concepts ‘whistleblower platform’, ‘social imaginaire’ and ‘boundary object’ introduced as leads in the first chapter. Second, the scene opens with a description of the method for the analysis and a presentation of the supporting actors in the shape of the participating journalists, technologists andPubleaks.nl.

Then finally, in the findings the

story unfolds. Exploring the turbulent relationship of journalists and technologists with a whistleblower platform, examining their identity, their interaction with the boundary object, their dreams for the perfect form and the tensions along the way. So when arriving to the conclusion, any reader of this thesis should be satisfied in hers or his initial curiosity and hopefully cradle a desire to explore the future of whistleblowing.

We can look atThe Post

with a nostalgic longing for the romance of old-fashioned investigative journalism, trafficking secret information, meeting sources in abandoned garages and stopping the presses. But this thesis is aimed at the future. If we want to cultivate whistleblowing as a practice, we need to acknowledge the new technological reality and indulge the possibilities.

(10)

(11)

'A what?' 'A whistleblower platform'

Both ‘whistleblower’ and ‘platform’ are ambiguous terms that could support various meanings and interpretations. Thus, before analyzing its working form, it is imperative to come to a clear definition of what this illusive object actually is. First, the act of whistleblowing is examined to arrive at a definition of the term ‘whistleblower.’ Second a description is given of how this practice has evolved in recent years, after which the concept of ‘platform’ is defined in this context to arrive at a workable definition of a ‘whistleblower platform’.

Considering the massive media attention they had in recent years, it could appear that term ‘whistleblower’ has been introduced by the editor of WikiLeaks Julian Assange or NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. But the practice of delivering secret information to the press has been a significant part of history. In the United States, the first high profile ‘leak’ took place in 1795 when republican senators informed the media about the ‘Jay Treaty’ which brought to light concessions that president George Washington had offered to the British (Kielbowicz 433). However, while this describes the exchange of confidential information, it does not automatically qualify as being an act of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing can be distinguished from other forms of disclosing information, commonly referred to as ‘leaking’. Leaking indicates an anonymous delivery of confidential information to the media, most notably by a public official. It is characterized by a violation of secrecy, the intention to further interests, exchange of information and anonymity (de Jong and de Vries 215-217). On the other hand, ‘whistleblowing’ is described as a voluntary disclosure of information about actual, suspected or anticipated misconduct by someone with access this privileged data, to an instance that has the capability to do something about it and goes on public record (Jubb 78).

There are three factors indicated within literature that distinguish a whistleblower from a general leak or source: motive, recipient and anonymity (Jubb 91; de Jong and de Vries 217). The motivation for leaking can be solely based on personal motives, anything from a grudge to the desire to get ahead (de Jong and de Vries 217). Like the exposing of the ‘Jay Treaty,’ which was politically motivated and can therefore be regarded as ‘leaking’ (Kielbowicz 483). In contrast, the motivation behind whistleblowing is often regarded as public interest. This does not exclude other motives from fitting within the definition of whistleblowing, as selfish acts can have good effects. It might be more appropriate to claim that the expected result of whistleblowing should be for the common good (Jubb 88). There is however, a clear distinction to be made: whistleblowing needs to be out of a personal internal motivation, while leaking can be done under the instruction of someone else (de Jong and de

(12)

Vries 218). Regarding the recipient, the definition of ‘leaking’ entails a relationship between the source and the media, while with whistleblowing the only specification is that it needs to be an entity that can act on the information and address the misconduct (Callahan and Dworkin 390). Last, anonymity is a subject of debate. While Jubb does not specify anonymity in his definition of a whistleblower, according to Bovens (192) whistleblowing can only be defined as such when the responsible person makes him- her herself known to the public. Simultaneously, he does state that it is often not the whistleblowers intention to be identified, like the source on the Watergate scandal Deep Throat or Daniel Ellsberg initially. This suggests that anonymity does not exclude one from being a whistleblower, but making yourself know is a prerequisite for acknowledgement of a whistleblower status, and therefore the right to the appropriate protection, by the government.

Following this demarcation, it is possible to identify the disclosure about hospital employees accessing a Dutch reality star’s confidential medical files as a ‘leak’ since the hospital was already investigating the matter and thus there was no wrong left to right (Zaalberg, 2018). Additionally, the controversial emails of the American presidential candidate Hillary Clinton can be considered a leak if they turn out to be shared by the Trump campaign, or Russia for that matter, as that would mean that they would serve self-interest. In contrast, according to Peter Hubbs’ definition of whistleblowing, Daniel Ellsberg’s exposure of the Vietnam military report and Chelsea (born Bradley) Manning's disclosure of files on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, can be defined as acts of whistleblowing since they were meant to hold the government accountable and serve the common good.

Apart from both being an act of whistleblowing, Ellsberg’s exposure of the Pentagon Papers and Manning’s revealing of the ‘warlogs’, are two completely different cases. Admittedly, there are 22 years between the two activities that can account for the difference. During this time, the information and communication technology as well as the general environment has changed dramatically. Developments that influenced the method for whistleblowing. These changes are most notable in five different areas: access, volume, communication, security and environment.

In 1969 Ellsberg was part of a seclude elite group with access to the information. He even had a personal vault in his office where he could store documents he was working on and subsequently smuggled them out of the office one by one to photocopy them. In contrast, in 2009 Manning was one of many security analysts with clearance to access the data. She only needed open source data mining software, a rewritable disc and an afternoon on the computer at her base to retrieve multiple video’s, 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables

and 482,832 army reports. This not only illustrates the change in access,

but also the difference in volume. Where Ellsberg needed months to make the copies of the 47 volumes measuring approximately 7000 pages, so that he could disclose the information, Manning was able to

(13)

extract 1.6 gigabytes of data in one afternoon. Related to this development are new technologies that enhanced the ability to process large quantities of information in less time. Where it had taken the New York Times months to go through all of Ellsberg's information, publishing all Mannings' data online only took minutes (McCurdy 125-134). Additionally, the internet has made newspapers obsolete as a necessity for publication, because anyone can upload and distribute information (Davidson 88). This is a change in the communication with the public, but a similar development can be found in the communication between the whistleblower and media. While Ellsberg needed to physically meet a journalists to transfer his information, Manning was able to use digital channels to hand it over remotely. Such a switch in communication technologies subsequently instigates the necessity for new security measures. In the seventies, incognito meetings in motel rooms and the use of payphones were measures to enhance anonymity and security. Ellsberg and his associates cut the words ‘top secret’ off the top and bottom of 7000 individual pages to hide its confidential status. In the new millenium security measures have evolved from this analogue practice to the use of digital encryption tools and anonymous browsers (McCurdy 125). The need for security has not diminished, as society has not stopped taking a hostile stance against whistleblowers. Indiscriminately, both Ellsberg and Manning have faced charges under the Espionage Act. But with Manning six other alleged leakers; Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake, Shamai K. Leibowitz, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden have faced the same charge under the Obama Administration. Twice as much as under all the former US-presidents combined (Davidson 88; McCurdy 136). These American examples illustrate the precarious environment in which whistleblowers find themselves these days, which is not limited to the United States. According to the NGO Transparency International; scarce legal protection, physical and mental abuse, inadequate investigation, libel and defamation laws and control on information, contribute to a hostile environment for whistleblowers all over the world (Transparency.org).

Acknowledging these changes of the context in which whistleblowing takes place, it is pertinent that the technological evolvement in government processes as well as information and communication technology are mirrored in the practices of whistleblowers and journalists (Kielbowicz 432). Such a process of translating the social, human activity of whistleblowing into a digital rhetoric, can be captured by the concept of ‘grammatization.’ Introduced by media theorist Bernhard Stiegler in 1998, ‘grammatization’ describes the action of breaking down a workflow, translating its pieces into digital building blocks and reassembling it as a ‘new set of gramme’ which is often a technology (Tinnell 136). When the digital aspect is disregarded for a moment, it is evident that this process of automatization and often optimization is not necessarily a new phenomenon. Many examples can be found in the industrialization period of the mid-19th century, most famously the assembly line using an electric

(14)

conveyor belt. Nowadays this translates into digital technologies where the created technology is not an extension of the current way of working, but an appropriation of this work into the digital sphere (Tinnell 137). According to Information Studies Scholar Philip E. Agre, this process of grammatization exists of five stages. First an analysis of the original activity is conducted, then the grammar is articulated and during ‘imposition’ the resulting grammar is given an normative force. After these first three, the physical part of the structure comes into being in stage four: instrumentation, where the technical attributes are provided. The last stage is called ‘elaboration’ and this describes the point where the created grammars are organized in its new form (Agre 747). Basically, grammatization explains the way in which an analogue process is mirrored within data structures, so that this process can be represented on a technological or digital entity (Agre 745).

The way in which Daniel Ellsberg disclosed the Pentagon Papers can be defined as an analogue process as he cut pages by hand as a security measures and arranged clandestine meetings with journalists in secure locations to hand over the documents. The manner in which Manning practiced whistleblowing displays grammatization, as several aspects of the process are reallocated into digital structures. She accessed the data using a computer, contacted journalists with online messenger services and, ultimately the data was published on the internet. While these programs may not be specifically designed to accommodate the practice of whistleblowing, they do represent structured grammars of the inherent action. It is a faction of these grammars that has been combined to build a whistleblower platform. As a structure it uses the grammars of protected communication, concealed browsing and transferring documents for secure and anonymous contact with media outlets. It is aimed at ‘whistleblowers’ and called a ‘platform’.

The use of the term platform

is popular for describing a website that functions as an

intermediary for content. In itself the word platform can relate to several things: in a computational context it suggests an infrastructure upon which one can built applications, in politics, it points the issues that a political candidate support and can even be associated with the stage of which a politician addresses its public. More conceptual, a platform can be seen as a foundation or basis for further achievement (Gillespie 2010, 348-350). Taking into account these different meanings, the terms hints to an ‘open, neutral, egalitarian and progressive support of activity’ which makes it an attractive term (Gillespie 2010, 352). It is possibly because of this association that the word is preferred by social media websites. As content providers that aim to create a space where users can express themselves freely, they use the term to distance themselves from the responsibility and liability of media organizations, without losing the aspect of being of a stage for expression (Gillespie 2010, 347). By calling online intermediaries ‘platforms’, their place in the middle is reinforced and the idea that it is an impartial,

(15)

neutral entity strengthened (Gillespie 2018, 4). However, this perception not only obscures their more entangled place in society between users, public, policymakers, law enforcement and citizens, it also disregards the governance within the platforms itself where decisions are made regarding design, algorithmic sorting, navigation or content exchange (Gillespie 2018, 3-5). According to communication scientist Tarleton Gillespie, in a digital context, platforms can be defined as sites and services that 'host and organize user content for public circulation, without having produced or commissioned it' usually for profit (2018, 1). This description does not fit the features of a whistleblower platform, as the site does not host content itself, it solely organizes the transfer of content between two users: the whistleblower and the journalist. It does not profit from the content or has any access to the shared information during the entire process. This raises the question if the software provided by GlobaLeaks should be defined as a platform. While I think not, the structure self-identifies as a ‘platform’ and so the term will be used throughout the thesis.

Thus, a whistleblower platform exists out of a combination of grammars representing the action of secure communication and exchange of information between journalists and whistleblowers. This is a result from the technological development from the time that Ellsberg disclosed thePentagon Papers, to Mannings sharing of the War Logs and up until now. But no matter the era, or digital or non-digital practice of whistleblowing, whistleblowers are defined according to Jubb: 'Whistleblowing is a deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an organization, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the control of that organization, to an external entity have potential to rectify the wrongdoing' (Jubb 78). Finally, while the structure of a whistleblower platform as such does not fit with the traditional definition of a ‘platform’ within communication studies, it will keep bearing the name as, well, that is what the developers call it.

(16)

Dream up the Good Work

'Technology, like art, is a soaring exercise of the human imagination

'

In 1973 sociologist Daniel Bell used these words to describe the essence of technology and the way in which it both shapes and is shaped by social structure and culture (394). Thus, to understand a technology, it is imperative to gain knowledge of the social and cultural environment in which it is conceived and used. A whistleblower platform is part of an extended network which encompasses multiple social groups, each of which can be considered as a distinct faction with a particular frame of reference. The social groups consist of the associated journalists and media organizations, the executive organizations, the technologists working on the platform and last, the (prospective) whistleblowers themselves. To conduct an exhaustive exploration of the formation of a whistleblower platform as a boundary object, it would be optimal to explore its interaction with each. However, the nature of the platform itself prevents this possibility. As one of its features is to provide anonymity for the whistleblowers who are using the platform, it is not possible to include this group of users in the research. Instead the study examines two other social groups who work with the platform: the journalists and the technologists. The focus lies on these groups as they work directly with the technological object that is the platform, in contrast to the executive organizations who manage the project.

The way journalists and technologists construct the social world and culture they are part of, can be represented by the concept of social imaginaires as identified by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. He states that a social imaginary is 'that common understanding that make possible common practices and a widely shared sense of legitimacy'. In this imaginaire you can find the values and norms that construct what is deemed correct behaviour. An aspect that inadvertently sets boundaries for the social group as anyone who does not share these ideas or demonstrates a form of incompatibility, can not be part of the social imaginaire (Taylor 106). While social imaginaires can be shared with large groups, even whole societies, Taylor states that since economy has been perceived as a system in the 18th century, there is a growing number of social dimensions which all have their own frame of reference (Taylor 105). So even while journalists and technologists can share certain societal connections, they inhabit a different social dimension and distinguish themselves as different social groups. Members of such a social group imagine the moral order they are in, the relation they have with each other and others according to normative conditions shaped by shared values and ethics (Taylor

(17)

106). The_{social imaginaire}

not only indicates how groups distinguish themselves from others, but also

how they perceive the world around them. This perception is projected in their interaction with objects and people alike, moulding them into functions according to their beliefs. Thus, to explore the relation that journalists and technologists have with a whistleblower platform, first it needs to be established how they stake out their distinct _{social imaginaires}

.

Journalists are widely recognized as a group with a special place in democratic societies. They attend to the informational need of audiences as citizens (Broersma and Peters 1). In this role, the journalists themselves as well as actors outside this group, ascribe to the profession certain principles and values, with which they distinguish themselves from other occupations (Deuze and Witschge 166). That these beliefs are shared within the large social group of journalists, is exemplified in the institutionalization of these norms with the conception of professional codes of ethics like the Code of Bordeaux

in 1956. In this code the International Federation of Journalists established which values

professional journalists should aim to uphold (Deuze 449). Characteristic values in these institutional frameworks are neutrality, objectivity and balanced reporting (van Zoonen 126). While these codes constitute a boundary on the journalistic profession, it states little about the intrinsic belief system and motivation of the journalists themselves. Media scholar Mark Deuze therefore proposes to conceptualize journalism as an ideology to create an understanding of how journalists ascribe meaning to their work (Deuze 444). Within this; public service, objectivity, autonomy, immediacy and ethics are five typical values that create unity within the beliefs system of journalism (Deuze 447). Since 1956, ongoing technical and societal developments have created a precarious work environment in which this profession has less and less security (Deuze and Witschge 171). While this could have led to loser morals to cast a wider net, the opposite is true. The choice to work in such a precarious environment is a commitment. A commitment that demands a belief in the value of this work that goes beyond a mere profession (Deuze and Witschge 176). Belonging to a news organization is not paramount to being a journalist, but upholding the values and ethics of the field is. In this setting, while being part of a media organization is not required to call yourself a journalist, it can enable reporters to live out their ideals (Russo 102). These ideals are part of the social imaginaire

of journalists, built on the values of public

service, objectivity, autonomy, immediacy and ethics.

The technologists find the foundation of their _{social imaginaire in the Free Software movement,} as the majority of whistleblower platforms is based on GlobaLeaks software, which is open source (Globaleaks.org). Open source software (OSS) is a phenomenon within software development where a community of volunteers and enthusiasts develop a computer program. This program is supposed to be better than its closed off counterparts, as it has been build in an environment of collaboration (Oreg and

(18)

Nov 2056). With OSS, it is possible for users to inspect the source code and adjust it if they like. While this sometimes implies that the software is easier to hack into, encryption technology such as the kind used in whistleblower platforms, are built according to the Kerckhoff’s principle. This principle states that a system should be secure even when its source-code is public knowledge, as long as the key remains unknown (Wyseur 56). An open source approach does mean that there is little to no financial gain in the distribution of the software (Krogh et al. 649). The possibility for anyone to control the software is one of the main values on which the Free Software movement was build. Founded in the eighties by programmer Richard M. Stallmal, the Free Software movement was a reaction to the surge of licenses and restrictions on the duplication and distribution of software. They believed that software where users could not access and modify source code, lacked any morality, so they aimed to continue developing software according to their own ethics and values (Stewart and Gosain 2006). Krogh et al identifies this association within OSS based on common beliefs within OSS asclan control

(Krogh et al.

651). To be part of the community, a technologist needs to exhibit an affiliation with the ruling social practices (Krogh et al. 664). Among these are the desire to enhance computational abilities, advance technology and gain prestige with the other technologists within this group (Coleman 126). While these shared practices do stake out some of the boundaries for the open source community, they are not the main reason that technologists chose to contribute to an open source project. The motivation to work as an OSS developer is guided by the main value of public service (Oreg and Nov 2069). This value drives not just the decision of a technologist to join the OSS community, it is also the main force behind the actions and decisions of the group in relation to the world around them (Schmoldt and Thompson 86). Transparency of source code, technological advancement and public service can be defined as ethics that shape the social imaginaire

of OSS technologists.

A whistleblower platform is an object in between many social groups. Among these are the attached media organizations and the technologists that manage the software it is built on. The relationship between these different actors is shaped by the social imaginaire of the respective social groups. A social imaginaire consist of the shared values that motivate and construct actions and practices. While software development and journalism can both be seen as a profession, neither of them have the pursuit of financial security as a main motivator. The availability of the source code prevents financial gain within OSS and the professional environment of journalism can be seen as precarious, lacking security. This creates a social and cultural environment in which values and ethics are the main reason behind the work that is done. For journalists, the quest for objective truths, providing citizens with relevant information and creating understanding, make up the boundaries of their social imaginaire. The OSS technologists find theirs in transparency, accountability and technological

(19)

development. These distinct imaginaires construct the interaction with a whistleblowing platform

and

subsequently shape it as a boundary object. Despite their separate imaginaires, both journalists and technologists share the passion to contribute to the common good.

(20)

On the Edge

The concept of boundary objects was first developed by Susan Leigh Star and Jim Griesemer to research how amateurs and professionals affiliated with Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology were able to perform satisfying work for both, without finding consensus. They found that instruments such as repositories, maps or standardized forms exist on the edge of the different social imaginaires. These objects have a loose definition or structure that can be understood by both groups, while at the same time being able to move into a fixed structure to satisfy the work needs of either one or the other (Star and Griesemer 393). It is a sociological concept and at first sight it might not seem suitable to research a digital structure such as a whistleblower platform. So, staged against the backdrop that is the current media environment, this chapter will explore five theoretical concepts to found the argument that the concept of boundary object provides the right tools to analyze the relation between journalists, technologists and the whistleblower platform.

Journalism is approaching the edges of its current form. Sales are going down, viewers decline and jobs are lost in traditional media, while at the same time software applications, data-processing tools, and computer programming techniques create unprecedented opportunities for journalists (Broersma 267; Lewis and Usher 2014, 1). Many claim that these developments are driven by technology and represent the end of journalism as we traditionally know it (Dimoulas et al. 77). However, this technological deterministic thinking ascribes to technology the almost Godlike power to vanquish journalism. It does not acknowledge the fact that journalism has always had a working relationship with technology. From theActa Diurna

inRoman times, to the introduction of the telephone in the 1900s and

the global use of the Internet nearly a hundred years later (Pavlik 229-230). While these developments did influence and change the media environment, it did not end its existence. A technological determinism as such disregards other social, economical and cultural factors that impact the development of the field (Örnebring 68). Therefore, most researchers choose to cast a wider net and take a social constructivist approach regarding technology and journalism. This approach assumes that reality is constructed out of the assumptions of a wide range of actors and conditions, instead of it being determined by absolute objects (Dimoulas et al. 78). Therefore it is beneficial to use a theoretical approach with a social constructivist foundation, as the research question presumes that the social imaginaires of journalists and technologists influence that digital structure that is a whistleblower platform.

(21)

Human and non-human agents have been in symbioses in the newsroom for decades. As early as the sixties computers aided journalists in their investigative work, a method that has led to Pulitzer prizes in the eighties and nineties (Lewis and Usher 2014, 2). The relationship intensified after the introduction of the Internet. Programmers were brought into newsrooms to develop web applications in the mid-2000s and with the rise of data driven journalism more and technologists find opportunities in media (Dagiral and Parasie 860-861). With the technology, the technologists find their way into journalism. Still Lewis and Usher claim that the vast amount of the research into media and technology looks at the potential tools that can have an impact on journalism and news production, while only sporadically the research includes the relation with social groups like journalists and technologists (2014, 3; Baack 2). However, if we aim to understand a socially constructed reality, it has value to take into account the perspective of these actors. The ties between journalists, technology and technologists calls for new theories that can address the complexity of this relation (Turner 321).

According to sociologists Bruno Latour, actor-network theory (ANT) provides a tool to capture such complexity within a research subject (Latour 380). It describes a network-like system in which agency is given not only to human and individual actors, but also to non-human entities and non-individual actors like social groups. This symmetry creates an approach with which technologies be analyzed as part of the social world without limiting the scope solely to their apparatus. As such, it would be a candidate for the analysis of the connection that journalists and technologists have with a whistleblower platform. ANT uses the concept of ‘network’ in its most essential form; it does not have to be strategic, imperative or global, there are just ‘connections.’ Within these connections there are actors that work. So instead of looking at an individual, institution or structure, an analysis would follow the connections of a given element within the network to establish its importance (Latour 369-372). This emphasis on an actor’s work and connections blurs the distinction between human and non-human (Turner 321). Therefore ANT can be a suitable model to analyze the multimedia environment in which technology is becoming an increasingly big part, and provide insight in the connection that journalists and technologists have with a whistleblower platform. Where traditionally technology would be seen as a new means of publishing or distribution, it can now be approached as an active agent in journalism (Turner 323). ANT is a tool to look at a social world in which the duality between human and non-human no longer exists. A heterogeneous network in which both human and technological actors have agency within their relationship. Even though the theory seems a perfect approach to whistleblower platforms, it lacks a method to analyze the nuances of the connections within this network, especially between those human and non-human (Bucher and Helmond 250). When looking at the network as a research unit, it disregards the social, economical and cultural factors that influence existing actors, their work can

(22)

and their connections. Latour states that: 'Literally there is nothing but networks, there is nothing between them, or, to use a metaphor from the history of physics, there is no aether in which networks should be immersed' (370). ANT leaves no space to examine the actors own constructive agency. As the meaning that actors ascribe to their surroundings has consequences for the form, shape or structure of the network they are part of it is necessary to move beyond the network as a single unit of analysis and find a way to examine the interactions within (Dagiral and Parasie 855).

Moving forward with the premise that technology and journalists are in constant interaction within the network and constantly renegotiate their methods and practices, it is imperative to understand this process so that a greater understanding of the socio-technical reality as whole can be developed (Dimoulas et al. 79). According to journalism researcher Stefan Baack, sociologist Norbert Elias’ concept of figurations

can help understand the connection between different elements.

Figurations involve several actors that are united because of a shared purpose, like a journalistic production

(Baack 7). That shared purpose creates a situation where different skills, practices,

perspectives or understandings are no longer closed off, but open and shared (Baack 2). As he looks into the collaboration between data journalists and civic technologists, he concludes that in this collaboration they form a single community characterized by overlapping and transferable skills, commitments to learning and open source culture, and complementary ambitions (Baack 6-7). This union on the front of both skills and ambitions, allows for an environment where actors not traditionally related to journalism, can engage in the field (Baack 17). Where Baack uses figurations to address the collaboration between two different fields: data journalists and civic technologists, Lewis and Usher apply the anthropological concept of _{trading zones to analyze the space where two different viewpoints} can work together without reaching an agreement about meaning (2014, 3). Anthropologist Peter Galison, who introduced the concept, describes tradings zones

as both the material and social

environment in which these different groups can interact (Lewis and Usher 2016, 546). He emphasizes that the groups do not find a consensus, but create a practice or sometimes even a language in which they can be productive (Lewis and Usher 2014, 3). Therefore a trading zone can only exist when two actors have an unrelenting contrasting point of view, because when they can find common understanding, the need for a trading zone ceases to exist (Collins, Evans and Gorman 658). As with figurations, tradings zones can account for the connection between two actors with different perceptions, but where Baack finds the connection in a shared purpose, Galisons’ trading zones emphasizes the differences and only find purpose in the interaction itself, which is illustrated by the emergence of a shared language. Both find that this connections is mostly situational and often ceases to exist without institutional support (Lewis and Usher 2014, 8; Baack 4). However, while these concepts

(23)

can account for the connections between two distinct and divergent human actors, it disregards agency of non-human elements within the network.

Alternately, sociologist Gina Neff and Media scholar Peter Nagy reconstructed

the concept

affordance,

accounting for non-human actors in a social network and incorporating the material in the

social world (Nagy and Neff 2). They state that individuals shape their own reality by ascribing affordances to innate objects and thereby create their agency (Nagy and Neff 1). The concept of affordance was originally introduced by psychologist James Gibson to describe contextual information of objects that living beings perceive and can act upon when encountered in an environment (Nagy and Neff 3). As this took into account both the materiality of the object as well as the perspective of the user, affordances established a neutral space between technological determinism and social constructivism (Nagy and Neff 2). However, as the concept was adopted by other academic disciplines, it lost this duality of being 'both environmentaland

perceptual, both conceptualandimagined' (Nagy and

Neff 3). In addition, Nagy and Neff argue that affordances are not attributed by a rational mind, but often implied by imagination. They coined the termimagined affordance

to emphasize the duality of the

concept as well as establish a distinction between rational and imaginative perception (Nagy and Neff 5). Adding this layer of imagination creates a research space where one can move beyond affordances and look at how they are conceived (Bucher and Helmond 252)._{Imagined affordances}

supplies the possibility

to research the (attributed) agency of non-human actors. Because of the relational character of affordances, it is evident that multiple perspectives exist of one non-human actor. However, it theory does not afford an in-depth analysis of the interactions resulting from these different perspectives, which is exactly what would create a deeper understanding of the relationship that journalists and technologists have with a whistleblower platform.

Where trading zones and figurations focus on the connection between human actors and imagined affordances look at the connection between a human and non-human actor, Susan Leigh Star aims to combine these approaches in her concept_{boundary objects.}

Constructed for scientific analysis,

the concept describes objects that occupy various social fields and meaningfully interact with those distinct fields. In this intersection a boundary object maintains its general definition, while still able to adjust to the perspectives of the respective fields (Star and Griesemer 393). With the concept, Star suggests that different social groups can collaborate through their shared connection with a non-human actor without finding consensus or losing their differences (Lewis and Usher 2016, 547). This way, research can move beyond just stating different perspectives and analyze them more specifically as part of separate fields and interactions (Star 613). According to Lewis and Usher, boundary objects do not always have to be material objects. In their case study, they introduce ‘news’ as a boundary object,

(24)

claiming it has a commonly accepted definition, but its contents can still be understood and used differently by different groups (2016, 547). This ‘interpretive flexibility’ has been the most recognized aspect of boundary objects in academic research. However, just interpretive flexibility does not a boundary object make. One needs also to take into account the material and organizational structure of the boundary object and the dynamic between the general and the actor specific definition to optimally make use of the concept. The form of a boundary object does not emerges out of chance, it is constructed out of the 'information and work requirements' of the different actors, and as such travels between this actor-specific shape and its more generally understood definition (Star 602). As Star (613) says: 'while anything can carry interpretive flexibility, it is not all worth studying as such'. She and Griesemer state that a useful boundary object exist with three notions: (1) It inhabits a space between two distinct actors where its definition can be somewhat vague. (2) When it is interacted with by one of the actors it is tailored to their specific interpretation, it does not become interdisciplinary and (3) the actors do not reach consensus but bounce the object between each other (Star 605). So by using boundary objects as the theoretical framework, it is possible to analyze not just the distinct social imaginaire and their perspectives, but they way in which they interact with and subsequently shape an object accordingly.

In this era where journalism and technology exist in close proximity, we can approach them as two actors in the same network. Using figurations and trading zones, it is possible to analyze the moments and situation where the two fields have a direct connection such as a collaborative project between data journalists and civic scientists. But this does not account for the agency of non-human actors that are part of the network and the connection. In contrast, imagined affordances explore the agency of the digital structures and describe different perspectives, but do not allow for research into the interactions and their results. Using the concept of boundary objects it is possible to look at journalists and technologists as distinct social groups, analyse their interaction with the whistleblower platform and see how their social imaginaires adjust the understanding of the platform to satisfy their work needs.

(25)

(26)

Making a Case

This research into whistleblower platforms revolves around two main concepts: boundary objects and social imaginaires. The premise is that journalists and technologists interact with the whistleblower platform as a boundary object. An interaction that is shaped in the incommensurable social imaginaires of these social groups, subsequently either enhancing or diminishing the effects of the whistleblower platform.

To analyze the roles that the social imaginaries of journalists and technologists play in their work with whistleblower platforms, it has been chosen to conduct a qualitative analysis. Qualitative research allows for interpretation rather than clinging to a scientific model, which creates the opportunity to interpret the data in line with Star’s theory on boundary objects, without having to capitulate into restrictive categories (Bryman 366). The course of the analysis will be guided by the three notions with which a boundary object exists, made operational as: (1) the space between two distinct actors, (2) the interaction of these actors with the boundary object and (3) the conflict over the optimal state of the boundary object (Star 605). Last, conflicts as a result of the overlap in work is examined, a phenomenon that Star refers to as ‘tension’. Using an inductive method focussing on shared values, construction of meaning and experiences, as well as anything out of the ordinary, it was possible to identify categories under each of these notions. The categories are described as the internal and external definition of the social imaginaries, interactions as an object for secure communication or as a source of information, a central and decentral perfect form and public interest, transparency and relevance. These categories are further analyzed in the findings to illuminate the connection between two disparate social groups and the boundary object. As such, the relationship between technologists, journalists and the whistleblower platform explored.

The way in which social imaginaries of technologists and journalists interact with, and subsequently shape a whistleblower platform, is an extensive subject that can be examined using various methods. To provide an in-depth analysis and decrease the risk of maintaining a general theoretical discussion on the issue, the choice was made to use a case study as a way examine actual and diligent accounts of the relationship between a whistleblower platform and affiliated journalists and technologists.Publeaks.nl

is a Dutch whistleblower website based on the GlobaLleaks software. As it is

local it enhances the feasibility of the study, while at the same time functioning as a model for the platforms built on GlobaLeaks software.

(27)

The dataset for this case study has been created with an ethnographic approach using semi-structured interviews. Even though qualitative interviews are ingrained with self-perception bias, this is only a small down side set against the positive aspects (Weiss 214). Applying this form of data gathering is favorable when researching the thoughts, beliefs and ideals of a certain social group. This way it is possible to capture the nuances of social imaginaries that will not easily unveil themselves when using closed categories and with that expose the way the boundary object functions in relation to the two imaginaires (Kelty 94). In total, ten semi-structured interviews were held. Five of those were conducted with journalists and five with technologists.

To create a comprehensive dataset the interviews were held with technologists who have different connections to the whistleblower platform and journalists from different news organizations. Two of the journalists work for legacy media organizations who are a member of Publeaks.nl.

Two

others are employed with contemporary online initiatives of which one is a member of Publeaks.nl while the other has been a member in the past but did not continue the arrangement. The last journalist works within a collective of freelance journalists and has had experience with information that came to their attention through Publeaks.nl

. Among the technologists, two of the participants are part of the

Hermes Center which created the GlobaLeaks software. One participant not only works for Greenhost, the company that hosts the_Publeaks

website, but also provides on site technical support for GlobaLeaks

as its developers are located in Italy. The fourth interview was with the technologist in charge of security forPubleaks.nl

under Free Press Unlimited. The last respondent works on the development of different

software for encrypted communication named Securedrop,

but has been involved in a consulting

manner.

All the participants were promised a summary of the results of the study. No names will be disclosed in this thesis as this was stipulated in the consent form signed by each participant prior to the interview. Privacy is deemed a value, especially in the open-source community and to accommodate this a PGP-key instead of a signature was considered acceptable for these forms. It seemed redundant to promise anonymity and then request to sign with a name. The interviews were held in person, over Skype or Signal, storing the information by recording the conversation on the phone. While not in the initial agreement, the data will be deleted of the phone after receiving the final grade.

The collected data has both been described and repeatedly listened to, so that the analysis of its content would be optimal. With an inductive method the categories related to the notions of a boundary object were identified as internal and external definitions, security and sources, central and decentral shapes and public interest, transparency and relevance. These were not solely distilled by identifying overlap, shared language or communal understanding, like the way in which all technologists

(28)

seemed to have trouble finding an identifying term for their social group. But also through paying attention to irregularities and unexpected structures, like the single journalist who stated that protecting your sources should be top priority.

In conclusion, to conduct in-depth research of the phenomenon ‘whistleblower platforms’, a casestude was made out of the Dutch whistleblower platform_Publeaks.nl.

The data for this research has

been collected using a qualitative approach consisting of semi-structured interviews with five journalists and five technologists connected to the platform. In turn, these interviews were inductively analysed along the lines of Star’s concept of boundary issues. This method provides the tools to find out in which way the imaginaires of journalists and technologists shape a whistleblower platform as a boundary object. However, to provide the necessary context before elaborating on the findings, the next two chapters will describe the scene in which the research takes place. First, the process of whistleblowing that is afforded through Publeaks.nl will be described, after which the background of the participating journalists and technologist is explored as to provide a context for the study that is as complete as possible.

(29)

Publeaks.nl

This in-depth analysis of the relationship that journalists and technologists have with whistleblower platforms is built on a case study of the Dutch whistleblower platform Publeaks.nl.

Therefore it is

important to get to know the system that is at the core of this research and understand the background of Publeaks.nl

. The software for the platform was developed in 2010, instigated by the foundation

Wikileaks.org. Several whistleblower platforms have been built using this software, of which the Dutch equivalent is Publeaks.nl.

It describes itself as 'a platform with which one can share information with the

media safely and anonymously' (Publeaks.nl). In origin Publeaks

is a project of the Non-Governmental Organization Free Press Unlimited. This

organization aims to enhance access to reliable information under the slogan 'People deserve to know' declaring that people need reliable information to survive. Located in Amsterdam, they have managed 97 projects in 46 countries across the globe since 2011. As an NGO, their finances rely on donations and project based funding, most notably from private and institutional human rights funds and global embassies or government bodies ( Freepressunlimited.org). In 2013 they set up Publeaks.nl as a platform to connect whistleblowers to the Dutch media. Soon after, they expanded the project and implemented similar platforms in Nigeria (Leaks.ng), Indonesia (IndonesiaLeaks) and Mexico (MexicoLeaks). The Dutch platform is accommodated under an additional foundation called Publeaks

that unites several

organization affiliated with the project. The participants consist of Free Press Unlimited, Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek, Stichting Democratie en Media, Netwerk Democratie, Huis voor Klokkenluiders and Greenhost. In addition to this, there are eighteen journalism organizations attached to Publeaks.nl as members, so that whistleblowers can assign information to them. Among these are newspapers, online magazines, news broadcasters, research groups and radio. A final group associated with the platform is the Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights. This Italian based foundation has created and still maintainsGlobaLeaks,

the open-source software on whichPubleaks.nl is

built (Publeaks.nl).

GlobaLeaks is a foundational software by design, so that it can be adjusted to the different needs of different whistleblower initiatives. The aim is to enable the secure and anonymous exchange of actionable information and as of 2018 it has been used in over 60 projects of which Publeaks.nl is one (Hermescenter.org). When a whistleblower intends to use Publeaks.nl to leak information, he or she can go to https://publeaks.nl where there is more information about the foundation itself and the safe practice of whistleblowing. In the right upper corner there is a button 'Upload Documents' however, if

(30)

an aspiring whistleblower clicks this, a warning appears that advises the user to install the Tor Browser to secure anonymity before further action. When someone takes this advice and switches to the Tor Browser, he or she is directed through a 4-step process. The first step is to select on of the 18 Dutch media organizations to share information with. It is only possible to chose seven out of eighteen possibilities, which calls for some deliberation on the choice. After the whistleblower chooses a media outlet, he or she can proceed to the second step. The second step is small questionform which inquires about the nature of the documents and the risks involved with exposing this data. All but one of the fields in the webform, namely 'Describe the issue you want to address' are mandatory to fill out before it is possible to move on to the third step. The third step is simple, but crucial: uploading documents. The last step requires the whistleblower to accept the ‘Terms and Conditions’. However, these are not terms and conditions in the traditional sense. The text box provides suggestions on how to enhance safety and security by continually using the Tor Browser when visiting the website, not disclosing any personal information and refraining from using any computer that could be connected to the office. Only after confirming knowledge about these measures, the documents can be send to the chosen media. When ‘Send’ is hit, the whistleblower moves to the next feature ofPubleaks.nl

; he or she is assigned a unique

registration number. With this number the whistleblower can log ontoPubleaks.nl to keep track of the status of the information that was handed over, but also see any messages journalists might have sent. This feature is especially important to journalists, as they can ask for additional information that they might need to ‘make the story stick’. This system aims to protect whistleblowers by providing secure contact between the journalist and the whistleblower withinPubleaks.nl and is completely anonymous if the whistleblower wishes it to be so.

In short, Publeaks.nl

embodies a digital representation of the secure and anonymous

communication between a journalist and a whistleblower. The workings of this method to provide whistleblowers with the needed protection has been explained by illustrating each step a whistleblower would have to take. However, while the are important end users of the platform, whistleblowers are not the only social group interacting with it. Free Press Unlimited, the partners in Publeaks Foundation, the media partners and associated journalists and the technologists developing and maintaining the software, all use the platform in one way or another to satisfy their work needs.

(31)

Imagine That

The case study exists out of three main components. One of which is the whistleblower platform

Publeaks.nl

that has been presented in the previous chapter. In 'Imagine That' the other two supporting

actors are introduced, namely the journalists and technologists participating in the study. To built a comprehensive dataset, the intent has been to speak with journalists from different news organizations and a diversified set of technologists. The journalists are employed by de Correspondent, Trouw, de

Volkskrant, Follow the Money

and on works as an independent reporter. The technologists work with

the GlobaLeaks software in different capacities. Then, to fully understand their social imaginaire and the way in which this influences their work with the whistleblower platform, it is helpful to understand their context and know their background.

At this moment there are eighteen journalism organisations attached toPubleaks.nl

, but this has

not always been the case. Over the years multiple media organisations have taken up and ended a liaison with the platform. Among these are legacy media such as the newspapers de Volkskrant, Trouw and het Financieel Dagblad,

but also more modern news initiatives like the research journalism platform

Follow the Money

or online magazinede Correspondent.As they refer to their work as journalism, it is

implied that they carry out the ethics and values assumed to be part of the social imaginary of journalists. However, the individual organizations often establish a unique vision within the field, to set them apart from the competition. For instance Trouw,

a legacy newspaper that started in 1943 as a

paper for the protestant fraction of the Dutch WOII resistance, claimsinclusion.

The organisation says

explicitly that it now caters to all religions and philosophies, and they aim to cater to the needs of this inclusive public by ‘making people aware of the meaning behind the news’ ( Trouw.nl). Curiously, other legacy media organizations do not proclaim their mission statement on their public website. De

Volkskrant provides visitors with a link to their Wikipedia page where they can read about the history andhet Financieel Dagblad

seems to rely solely on their title which makes readers aware of their focus

on economic and business news (Wikipedia.org). As these newspapers have an established history as a trustworthy source for news and since their inception gathered a loyal audience, they might no longer feel the urgency to distinguish their vision. In sharp contrast toFollow the Money

and de Correspondent.

Started in respectively 2010 and 2013, these news organizations needed to find a public in a more precarious journalistic environment. Without the security of a historic following, a commitment to values and ethics is a way to distinguish themselves from the competition (Deuze and Witschge 176). Their websites do explicitly give a mission statement.De Correspondent

All The President's Platforms: Enabling whistleblowers in a new digital reality

Enabling whistleblowers in a new digital reality