Comment Re:Assange gets arrested. (Score 1) 538
It's no secret that Assange and the Wikileaks staff already collaborate with many major respected news outlets to review their materials. They help Wikileaks validate the autenticity of the leaks, evaluate their sensitivity and news relevance, and redact the parts that could be really dangerous for themselves or the people mentioned to make public. Wikileaks don't release themselves all the stuff they possess, and their choice of material is influenced by the assessments of the expert journalists they collaborate with.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGklsz34QyGDKMDA
So basically this newly formed whistleblower group would do the exact same job, except taking the step of publishing material under their name.
I guess the reasoning is that they want to provide their service to the public debate without polarizing the attention on themselves rather than on the material they make available, with the many risks involved - from trivializing the issue into a "civil heroes" vs "media terrorist" judgment on them, to being devalued as mere attention seekers, and finally to have their operations compromised and boycotted.
Which is exactly what is happening to Wikileaks these days.
I suppose Assange had a latent desire to be in the spotlight as a paladin, and that's what motivated the founder of Openleaks to split from him, foreseeing the troubles.
Getting back from a wiki-based utopia of free information to a "last century" news-filtered setup may seem disappointing to many slashdotter here*, but you have to consider that the majority of the people out there don't - and never will - take the time to dig and review the cables themselves, and will just keep to get their infos from the estabilished news outlet.
So sacrificing the wiki availability could be a reasonable price to pay in the civil battle for accountability and trasparency of government, if it helps the public opinion focusing on the moon rather than on the finger pointing at it.
(*well maybe not much given the historical rate of TFAs reading...)