An intriguing media tidbit at the end of PiPresser Dave Orrick's DataGate story this morning:

Meanwhile, the WikiLeaks site itself drew more curiosity Friday.

Its media office e-mailed at least some of those named on its spreadsheets and told them, "Several national news organizations, such as the AP, and local organizations in MN have asked us for your feedback." It went on to say that the media groups had a "pool" agreement in which WikiLeaks would act as a conduit for a request for a "one-time comment" of each supporter. It promised them confidentiality.

Doug Glass, Minnesota news editor for the Associated Press, said the AP knew nothing of this. WikiLeaks spokesman Jay Lim acknowledged the AP was not involved after the Pioneer Press, which also had no such agreement, questioned him.

Lim did not respond to a request about which news organizations had agreed to a pool. Such a third-party pooling agreement would be highly unusual because the media already have access to the donors' contact information and because the Coleman campaign has questioned the involvement of WikiLeaks in what it has called "theft."

OK, so Orrick caught Wikileaks lying about AP. Are they lying about everyone else in the Minnesota media scene?

Like Orrick, I doubt any credible local media organization (old or new) would do this; Minnesota Independent, for example, has done a good job getting comments on its own. I can't see any other organization I regularly cover needing to partner with these folks.

But since Wikileaks won't substantiate its own claim, consider this a crowdsource request to Minnesota media organizations: are you in Wikileaks' pool? You can leave your answer in the comments, or email me at dbrauer [at] minnpost.com.

Do not assume an organization's absence from the running list below means they're in. It's Saturday and it may take some time to get folks on the record.

Organizations not in Wikileaks' "pool"
Associated Press
City Pages
Minnesota Daily
Minnesota Independent
Minnesota Public Radio
MinnPost
MnPublius
Pioneer Press
Twin Cities Public Television
The Uptake

Update: It just gets weirder. Here's an email I received from media@wikileaks.com:

We told Pioneer, in response to an email about "AP Minnesota" that "AP Minnesota was not involved AFAIK". We DID NOT state that "AP was not involved". There was no "admission of anything" other than that we were busy. Pioneer, agreed to be in the pool, btw, in response. — Jay Lim.

I think it's preposterous that the PiPress be in the pool, much less lie about it in print, but I'll double-check with them and AP's national and global headquarters. I've also asked Lim to cough up the names of the Minnesota organizations so he can prove the organization is telling the truth.

Nevertheless, I hear the honking of untamed geese being chased.

Update II: This is not how I want to spend my Saturday, but still.

Orrick says AP's Minnesota office and New York headquaters denied being part of any arrangement, so Lim will have to explain just what part of AP he's talking about.

As for the PiPress, Orrick says he told Lim that Wikileaks could pass along any comments distributed to the media, but was not agreeing to the group's key promise to donors: that once they spoke to WikiLeaks, the media wouldn't contact them.

Orrick said he reserved the right to call up donors and verify their "WikiLeaked" comments. In other words, he'd take WikiLeaks' info, but would verify it according to the PiPress' rules, not the leakers'.