I'm unconvinced by the main argument of the article - that the Panama Papers signal a shift (perhaps paradigmatic?) in mainstream journalism.
Yes, the PP leaks are different than Wikileaks, and yes, the ICIJ reporting/investigation is different than most other cases of investigative journalism, but one outlier doesn't a shift make.
Simultaneously, the article does bring up some thought-provoking points, like the need by journalists to consider how they may be strategically used by leakers of data for their own ends. But that's not really a new consideration for journalists, either.
Granted, the article's author is unlikely to have titled the piece, so perhaps the author would assert that the article wasn't trying to make the argument defined by the title. Yet, all in all, I found the article to be sometimes interesting but ultimately unpersuasive.
I agree, I certainly hope it will wake a lot of people up and spur on a new wave of investigative journalism, but to say that it's already changed things is premature.
Yes, the PP leaks are different than Wikileaks, and yes, the ICIJ reporting/investigation is different than most other cases of investigative journalism, but one outlier doesn't a shift make.
Simultaneously, the article does bring up some thought-provoking points, like the need by journalists to consider how they may be strategically used by leakers of data for their own ends. But that's not really a new consideration for journalists, either.
Granted, the article's author is unlikely to have titled the piece, so perhaps the author would assert that the article wasn't trying to make the argument defined by the title. Yet, all in all, I found the article to be sometimes interesting but ultimately unpersuasive.