Thief13x on 30/11/2010 at 04:59
heh, funny seeing Bush and Clinton on front page news 'strongly opposing' the leak of these docs. At least we found one thing politicians can agree on, fucking the American people!
Then again, it's not like this is news in and of itself
Shakey-Lo on 30/11/2010 at 09:25
Quote Posted by Yakoob
I'm not too knowledgeable about Wikileaks and who runs it but... how credible is it, really? I know it has a reputation for leaking true sensitive information, but what prevents it from one day "leaking" something that's not quite true at all in order to promote some agenda? I know I may be sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist, but that's why I'm asking how does Wikileaks obtain the leak and how credible is it, really?
The man who leaked the cables and the "Collatarel Murder" video is (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning) Bradley Manning and is currently facing up to 52 years in prison. It's a shame that the media is fixated on Julian Assange, when all he is is some guy that founded a website. Most people haven't even heard of the guy who really put his neck on the line for this stuff.
snowcap21 on 30/11/2010 at 12:50
Quote Posted by Kuuso
That's exactly why Wikileaks has asked for the co-operation of goverments (especially US) to strip the cables of really sensitive information that will put lives and nations at real risk before every leak. Naturally, goverments have turned down this opportunity and then proceeded to cry about Wikileaks dangering human lives with their leaking (even though they have censored themselves really well with removing names etc.). In other words, it's just pure hypocrisy.
Did they really ask some governments to cooperate? From what I read at the Spiegel (weekly newspaper here in Germany) they asked some newspapers so see through the cables and edit them. Governments can make suggestions what to remove, but in the end the newspapers do the editing. But they haven't been too clear about the process, maybe that was only after the governments rejected the first option.
Reading in some of the cables the claim that US authorities have strong data protection in place, so their EU allies shouldn't be so hesitant to share sensitive data, was gold.
Queue on 30/11/2010 at 14:43
Not that I'm one for any type of censorship, but (and there's that all telling "but" that makes me a nazi-communist who secretly thinks George Bush was right, and that he can dance really well) I'm beginning to wonder if these "journalist" have lost their sense of discretion in their drive to be noticed and recognized by the internet-society. Must we air everyone's laundry just because we can, and somehow justify doing so in the name of "journalistic freedom"?
What about journalistic integrity?
Take the David Rohde's incident, who was abducted by some Taliban loonies, and, along with another reporter, was able to escape after seven months in captivity. The brotherhood of journalist banded together and kept his abduction a secret as it was in his best interest not to plaster the abduction across the media, and was done so for his safety. I'd call that pretty outstanding, integrity wise. Yet, this same brotherhood was more than happy to blow the cover of Valerie Plame, thus endangering her safety and her operation. And this was done so to achieve what?
Now, with this recent round of wikileaks, via stolen diplomatic papers (isn't stealing still considered a crime?), we find Egypt's role as a much-needed Mideast mediator severely undermined, leaders with egg on their face--which is always good thing for global relations and harmony--and secrets leaked that, though they are great internet fodder for the masses, frankly should remain secret.
Have we forgotten that when dealing with national leaders, we are dealing with egotistical narcissists who have access to lots of weapons and don't take kindly to being "dissed"? Hell, we can't even have a thread here about something as stupid as gaming consoles without dethtoll losing his shit. Imagine arming him to the teeth.
The internet is a great tool for information, and information sharing. I mean, who can forget such profound questions as, "What do I do while my boyfriend fingers me?", and treasure troves of encyclopedic information such as the Snatch Eating Frog. And let's not forget the global outlet where the disturbingly untalented can entertain the disturbingly vapid masses that is YouTube. But (there's that but again) it's this need for 15 minutes of fame and attention that can result in a detachment of sensibility when it comes to real-world issues. And today's "journalists" are so screaming for recognition that they may have forgotten what true journalism is all about.
Journalist need to learn to once again be journalist, and not a bunch of sniveling muckrakers who love to tattle just because they can and feel the need to do so.
And that's the way it is.
Kolya on 30/11/2010 at 16:11
Yeah, clearly the NYT, Guardian, Le Monde and Spiegel are just a bunch of sniveling muckrakers.
You know, even bloody Putin is reasonable enough to first look at what's been released and how. And it's been made abundantly clear, by both wikileaks and the involved newspapers, to anyone who doesn't only listen to the government's outcry (which is mainly a message saying that they won't react in any other way), that the cables are being cleared of information and names that could put persons or nations in immediate danger. Which may be the reason the whole thing amounts to nothing more than foreseeable diplomatic gossip so far.
Queue on 30/11/2010 at 17:18
I understand that, Kolya. But (and there's that but again) to what point were these documents released?
Unlike Watergate -- where the possible ramifications of the information obtained was pondered, and finally decided that the truth had to be released -- in which government corruption and criminal activity was exposed, what the hell was the point to leak these gossipy bits if not to simply do so? There was no reason, no greater good, no means to an end beyond: Hey! Check this out.
That's muckraking. Not journalism.
june gloom on 30/11/2010 at 17:41
Journalism's entire point is forcing transparency and openness on government.
Queue on 30/11/2010 at 17:51
Okay. So show me something from this latest round of wikileaks that exemplifies that sentiment, something that proves the altruism behind it.
Sulphur on 30/11/2010 at 17:55
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Journalism's entire
point is forcing transparency and openness on government.
Yeah, but this is a breach of privacy and like Queue says, most of it's to no good end.
It's one thing to be an undercover snoop and release information on plots that undermine peace, sanctity, freedom or have repercussions for the common man in general, but airing dirty laundry just for the sake of embarrassing people isn't journalism, it's writing for a goddamn tabloid.
ZymeAddict on 30/11/2010 at 18:01
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Journalism's entire
point is forcing transparency and openness on government.
No, the point of this type of investigative journalism is to force transparency and openness from government,
when it serves some greater purpose. Sometimes governments
need to be opaque and closed in order to serve the interests of their country, or even the world at large. Espionage and diplomacy are prime examples.
Wikileaks is acting like those idiots who go on and on about "freedom of speech" as if it's the be all and end all, rather than a means to an end.
