Queue on 30/11/2010 at 18:07
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
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.
...and these "journalists" that don't understand that are devaluing their profession.
Kolya on 30/11/2010 at 19:16
Maybe the point is to show us all that our governments and their apparatschiks are fallible humans just like the rest of us and that we hence should not place too much trust in the whole theater being put up for the public because the truth behind it is exactly as trivial and obvious as most of us were suspecting the whole time.
There's no big revelation here and any statesman or nation who might use these cables to support some kind of aggressive action would have done so either way. That's just where the theater starts again.
Whoohaa! We never suspected you thought of us like that! Our honour demands we start a war now! Bummtschack!
That would be just bullshit and everyone can see that now. Because we - as in all the normal people in every country - know now how exactly how this theater works. And that means our nation's leaders will have to fear their people a bit more again, and that is democracy right there. This is why allowing us all to look behind the scenes of this tragicomedy was important and genuine journalistic work.
Kuuso on 30/11/2010 at 19:17
Considering Assange or the site in general never claiming to be journalists, these accusations you're throwing at them are quite silly. I think you're misunderstanding the function of the site. It's a gateway for whistleblowers, not a newspaper. The whole point is to release documentation in it's full without editing, because the truth IS ugly. To sample it more closer would nullify the whole site.
It is clear there's risks involved with just straightly releasing info, but it's really worth it, because just purely providing people the information gives the international community the first chance in the history of of modern politics to address the crimes the political powerhouses have been committing upon their victims. There already are multiple investigations launched all over the world to nail criminals acting as goverments on horrible crimes, most importantly in the middle east.
To simplify my point, I see this as a push for better politics. Yes, it will be chaotic and possibly claim lives and possibly even countries (especially since the goverments don't have the brain to help Wikileaks to censor sensitive material), but it sure as hell beats millions of people suffering from crimes that politically powerful nations are constantly doing on them.
I think it's simply stupid to call Wikileaks on "muckraking", when it's the only site actually releasing the info freely. It is the established (and corrupt) media houses that are clinging into the most asinine points of the cables as in how US have described Medjedeve and Putin as Batman and Robin.
Brian The Dog on 1/12/2010 at 00:20
One example of the media here in the UK keeping a story unreported for the greater good was Prince Harry (3rd in line to the throne) fighting in Afghanistan with the UK army. The media realised that if it was reported, he'd immediately be sent home as the Taliban would love to kidnap him (and execute him in a video), so the media did a black-out. Some Canadian newspaper (I think?) didn't realise and leaked it after a few months, at which point he was pulled out of the country asap (and he was mighty annoyed about it too).
Kolya on 1/12/2010 at 00:28
And understandably so. I'd hate it to be pulled out of Afghanistan. Just when I was about to win the fucking war.
Thief13x on 1/12/2010 at 01:50
I've never seen politicians so united for a single cause - keeping the true cost of "war" from the American public.
It would almost seem like they're.....working together! :D
Shakey-Lo on 1/12/2010 at 08:19
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
One example of the media here in the UK keeping a story unreported for the greater good was Prince Harry (3rd in line to the throne) fighting in Afghanistan with the UK army. The media realised that if it was reported, he'd immediately be sent home as the Taliban would love to kidnap him (and execute him in a video), so the media did a black-out. Some Canadian newspaper (I think?) didn't realise and leaked it after a few months, at which point he was pulled out of the country asap (and he was mighty annoyed about it too).
The greater good = Prince Harry getting to hunt him some towelheads?
Brian The Dog on 1/12/2010 at 09:18
Greater good = not announcing that a rather important person was in the country undercover. The media didn't report it since there was no point - as soon as it got announced, they knew he'd be pulled from the country for safety reasons. Whether you're for or against the war, it didn't make sense to report it - the only effect it would have would be to endanger one person who would then be immediately pulled from the front line.
Of course, it did lead to one of the best headlines of the past few years...
hopper on 1/12/2010 at 14:15
But that only shows the absurdity of sending him over there in the first place. If you're concerned about the greater good, it is perhaps not the best idea in the world to send one of the very few guys you truly cannot afford to lose to the enemy into the battlezone. It would have made sense to make his presence there public right away if it meant that they'd pull him out so that the army and the media could again assign their resources to actually getting shit done.
That said, I agree with Queue and ZymeAddict on the Wikileaks. Whether the people at Wikileaks claim to be journalists or not, is entirely beside the point. With freedom of speech comes a degree of responsibility, and it is well worth considering whether releasing certain informations might cause dangerous tensions in volatile regions to spin out of control. It's not as if you can wash your hands in innocence just because you are "not a journalist".
Kuuso on 1/12/2010 at 14:22
Harry only went to Afghanistan to get a better resume imo. He shouldn't be sent there in there first place.
Talking about responsibility, I am full aware of the fears people have on this and I can see how some major revelation could actually spark a war, but in the other hand, if Wikileaks hadn't released their Chinese info, China wouldn't have claimed out in the open that they are looking forward to unified Korea. I would bet they wouldn't have announced it otherwise. This could lead to dismantling of the most horrible nation in the world right now, which is North Korea.
