Jane-DoH
"Well, of course there are other ways to leak out information but the problem is if WikiLeaks is taken down, it would justify either taking similar sites down, or blocking access to them."
Not always. Firstly, the internet is a powerful tool and forums especially. Governments can't block everyone. Multi post the same information on enough web sites the world over and if what is being leaked is of any interest, it will be promulgated world wide in 24 hours and probably picked up by the mainstream media.
You could of course also use talk back radio as another way of getting info out.
Now let's look at mainstream media and the eample provided by a previous poster which I have quoted below.
"Moreover, whistleblowers have learned that even the New York Times first checks with the government before the paper prints a leak. Remember, the Times sat for one year on the leak from NSA that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. The Times published only after Bush was reelected. Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out."
IF the NY Times thought that a competitors newspaper was going to get a scoop on the above info, I dare say it would have published it REGARDLESS of the date.
To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.
So, the mainstream media MIGHT keep quiet but only as long as they don't think they are "missing out" on a scoop and therefore sales. Just look at the mad scramble for photos of celebs.
"Missing out" is a powerful force and if you manipulate it to your advantage, you could get the media to do the work for you. Prince Charles and Princess Diana did.
That is my HO only, others may disagree with me.
.