Are you following the Wikileaks story?

Novemberrocks · December 2010

Julian Assange is one crazy MFer. And the stuff about bringing a major bank down sounds a little reminiscent of the Millenium Trilogy to me.

Temp893353375007415 · December 2010

I think he is insane and I don't think he has any respect for the lives he may be putting in danger.

_Fenton · December 2010

I think he is the last hope for journalism. I changed my Facebook politics line to "WikiLeaks." The argument, "We have a duty to hide our corruption so the enemy doesn't get more angry about our corruption" doesn't hold water for me.

FallinAgain · December 2010

I might be ok with his publishing the petty crap diplomats say about other diplomats (and seriously, didn't they learn not to write that shiit down in 5th grade? I did), but publishing the name of Afghani civilians aiding us is so far beyond a line. I don't think he's a journalist. I think he's an AW.

I think the private who collected the documents should never see daylight again.

samfish2bcrab · December 2010

I agree with Fenton. There needs to be a whole lot more truth going on fromt eh top brass, be them corporate or political.

Novemberrocks · December 2010

FallinAgain:

I might be ok with his publishing the petty crap diplomats say about other diplomats (and seriously, didn't they learn not to write that shiit down in 5th grade? I did), but publishing the name of Afghani civilians aiding us is so far beyond a line. I don't think he's a journalist. I think he's an AW.

I think the private who collected the documents should never see daylight again.

This. On the one hand, I think transparency in journalism is good. On the other, when that information endangers peoples' lives, it's gone way too far.

I also think he's kind of a creep and his intentions are not at all altruistic.

_Fenton · December 2010

I don't know if the names were missed in the redactions or what, and it's unfortunate that they were listed. But in terms of the bigger picture, I think too much is getting covered up, sugarcoated, and/or rationalized. Plus, if the media were doing their job, there wouldn't be a market for bombshell leaks like this. The death of the free press is more troubling to me than Afghan informants being outed, as harsh as it sounds.

FallinAgain · December 2010

Maybe I'm missing the good that this leak has done, My understanding is mostly that it's been military strategy and informants revealed and some embarrassing stuff about State calling Sarkozy a pipsqueak and trying to get credit information on foreign diplomats. If there was release of smoking guns about no WMDs or trying to assassinate Chavez or putting lead in toys to discredit China or something, maybe I'd see it as good to bring corruption to light. Am I missing something?

And, no I don't think Assange has any altruistic motives.

_Fenton · December 2010

This particular document dump was not as significant as previous ones. But there is more confirmation of "here's the real situation with Middle East relations." I've only read summaries but there's a picture of utter chaos and no control of nukes in Pakistan. I think people loosely "know" that, but documentation that proves it should be a major concern.

Here's an article that sums up some of the actual substance in this recent leak (plus the fact that HRC instructed US officials to spy on UN diplomats, that's kind of a big deal and makes us look shady):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-embassy-cables-us-global-power

_Fenton · December 2010

dupe

Temp893353375007415 · December 2010

I am on Fallin's bicycle. I don't think he has any altruistic motives and I think he and that private should never see the light of day. spying on other diplomats? That has been done since the dawn of time, by all nations. The fact that it was released shows where our weaknesses are.

Fenton,I do agree with you on the death of good journalism, but i do not think wikileaks is good journalism, I think it is a narcissist who wants attention.

CaptainSerious · December 2010

You don't think we should be spying on foreign diplomats that spend a lot of time in our country? That seems like the minimum standard of intelligence gathering to me.

salimoo · December 2010

FallinAgain:
Maybe I'm missing the good that this leak has done, My understanding is mostly that it's been military strategy and informants revealed and some embarrassing stuff about State calling Sarkozy a pipsqueak and trying to get credit information on foreign diplomats. If there was release of smoking guns about no WMDs or trying to assassinate Chavez or putting lead in toys to discredit China or something, maybe I'd see it as good to bring corruption to light. Am I missing something?

And, no I don't think Assange has any altruistic motives.

This is basically my position.

FallinAgain · December 2010

I read the link and still don't get it. Maybe I just do not think our government should be transparent when it comes to diplomacy, national security, and military strategy. What I do think is that they should be better at securing their secrets. The ability of a private to copy and walk out with info that is, at best, embarrassing (even if all countries do it) and, at worst, endangering to people's lives is unfathomable.

mashedpotato · December 2010

FallinAgain:
I read the link and still don't get it. Maybe I just do not think our government should be transparent when it comes to diplomacy, national security, and military strategy. What I do think is that they should be better at securing their secrets. The ability of a private to copy and walk out with info that is, at best, embarrassing (even if all countries do it) and, at worst, endangering to people's lives is unfathomable.

I agree with you.

I'm glad I could contribute to this conversation.

SarahBethBR · December 2010

My H (broadcast journalism major, I guess he's a journalist?) agrees with Fenton. He says the guy isn't really going about everything in the best way possible, but that he's doing a good thing overall.

I have mixed feelings. I think too many things are classified, and I think we need a return to real journalism. I'm just pretty sure this isn't it. He's revealing too much/not the right things. Releasing the names of people who are probably going to get killed for helping us out is pretty abhorrent.

_Fenton · December 2010

But we vote based on foreign policy. How do you have a government of the people when so much information is kept FROM the people?

As the big media companies give way to the ratings game and reprint politicians talking points/memos/press releases and the audience splinters off to half-informed bloggers and wingnut radio shows, the black hole being created by this is going to be filled with something. I don't think that what WikiLeaks does is journalism, but it's happening because there is no journalism and this is the only alternative. I still think WL is much better than the absence of WL, with our current society as is.

I'm not about to call him a hero as a person, but the fact that there is a way for corruption to come to light is important. I also think that making information public is not the same as sharing it with our enemies. It all went public at the same time, so we know what they know, we know the names they know, etc., so we can change what we need to and protect who we need to. I'm not saying there will be no damage, but it's not the same as giving information secretly to a terrorist organization.

And it will be disappointing if this whole thing is a ruse, but I do have a conspiracy theory that the government leaked the information on purpose and the outrage is all part of a strategic performance to accomplish certain goals. On the simplest level, maybe the Afghanis named don't exist and the addresses in the leak are traps. I'm sure that is way too coordinated and sophisticated for our government to pull off, but it was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read about this.

pdxmouse · December 2010

I think our government pressuring Spain to drop its legal investigation on torture at Guantanamo certainly deserves to be known.

Our journalists are too busy being appalled that government secrets were shared and looking for points to criticize Assange's motivations and what should have been leaked. I don't have time to sort through everything right now, but I'm guessing most of the stories not focusing on "how dare he" and more on the meat are going to be in the foreign press.

FallinAgain · December 2010

Is what should/should not have been leaked a decent inquiry though? I can't understand even being pleased by this from a journalistic standpoint. There's no journalism here. This dude just got a bunch of illegally obtained documents and posted them on the interwebz. No attempt to present them in a way to promote discourse or understanding, no attempt to redact what even his supporters seem to admit should not be released. I don't think good journalism = publishing everything that comes across your desk, eff the consequences to the country, the world, or individuals. There has to be some responsible middle ground between spouting the people in power's talking points and info dumping.

SarahBethBR · December 2010

I don't think anyone is saying this is good journalism (or even that he's a journalist) or that this is responsible.

I think his aim is to try to force journalists to report on this stuff, some of which does need to be out there.

FallinAgain · December 2010

I'm reading it as "if journalists don't report on the 'real news' (whatever that means) then this is what is going to happen and that's a good thing" and I don't think that is a good thing.

SarahBethBR · December 2010

Well you read it WRONG!

No, like I said, I have mixed feelings. I think this guy is a grade A douchebag. I wish somebody with a little more scruples would have taken this one, like someone who had the foresight to not release the names of Afghan informants. But I do feel like we have a right to know some of this stuff. Of course journalists don't have to report every piece of information they get, but they can do a much better job than a baby who loves Bob Marley (thank you dawg).

_Fenton · December 2010

I said in my post that what they do is not journalism. But if there is no reliable journalism in our society, people will seek other ways to get the information out. I would rather have the responsible filters, but if the choice is between no information and too much unfiltered information that causes damage, I choose the latter. Like SB said, I think that maybe if incidents like these will shame the media into being more professional and not just printing prepared statements verbatim in order to stay on good terms with sources to keep their access....access they use to get more prepared meaningless statements to regurgitate.

Now at least there is some threat of being exposed. We need that threat and that fear to keep up some kind of ethical standards in government and business.

FallinAgain · December 2010

I just don't see this as a way to shame legit journalism at all, because it is so very far removed from journalism. Was there a way to publish responsibly some of the information in this dump that might aim toward pushing real news outlets to do something similiar? Likely. Was that Assange's motive or his accomplishment? I seriously doubt it.

_Fenton · December 2010

I would also take into account that he's not an American and sees us as aggressors. So he and the organization are not thinking in terms of "let's keep state secrets to ensure the US is victorious and stays a major world power," like a citizen would be. I don't think they're pro-Taliban, but I also don't think they sees this as hurting the "good guys."

pdxmouse · December 2010

I don't think this is journalism. I don't think Assange is a great guy. I don't know if that matters.

What interests me are from a media perspective -- why are "responsible" journalists shying away from looking for this kind of information? We know in the build-up to Iraq they had all kinds of info they didn't see it as their job to share, or if they did share they wanted to make sure it wouldn't influence the elections. What exactly do journalists see as their job? should seeming savvy and responsible be a high priority?

The other thing that interests me is what nasty things do our representatives do in other countries where they have less scrutiny? The petty things they write privately might be minor, but display a lot of contempt. Are we arrogant? What might we miss out on because of that arrogance? Are we actively intervening in other countries to retain our dominance? Even our allies? Is it okay because we've assumed it happens and we assume everyone else is doing it too?

Gee, it would be nice to see some of those questions addressed by, you know, journalists. I can see some hand-wringing over how secure state secrets are, a little bit of insecurity about whether this will influence way courts address prior restraint, a question or two about the motives in the leak... but I'm seeing far too much and not enough that addresses what was leaked and contextualizing it.

FallinAgain · December 2010

I think this is absolutely what all countries do, have always done, will alsways do.

pdxmouse · December 2010

FallinAgain:
I think this is absolutely what all countries do, have always done, will alsways do.

Are we better off not knowing about it? Should journalists just ignore it?

wendyld · December 2010

SarahBethBR:
I have mixed feelings. I think too many things are classified, and I think we need a return to real journalism. I'm just pretty sure this isn't it. He's revealing too much/not the right things. Releasing the names of people who are probably going to get killed for helping us out is pretty abhorrent.

So this intrigues me. Why do you think too many things are classified and how did you come about that opinion? If this comes across as b!tchy, that's not how I mean it, but as someone with a security clearance, I see a lot of instances where fact A, B, or C might not pose a danger to national security, but if all three were de-classified, a real danger exists.

FallinAgain · December 2010

pdxmouse:

FallinAgain:
I think this is absolutely what all countries do, have always done, will alsways do.

Are we better off not knowing about it? Should journalists just ignore it?

I'm not sure I care to know about something that will never change. I think government have to operate with some degree of secrecy when it comes to national security. So, in that way, I think we are better off not knowing about it because no one should know about it and journalists should not report it if it jeopardizes national security.

It's hard to talk about this in vague generalities though and that's sort of what you have to do when discussing this sort of info dump.

As a separate note, is there information that legit reporters had this information and ignored it? My understanding is that it went from the treasonous private to Assange.

Temp893353375007415 · December 2010

FallinAgain:
pdxmouse:

FallinAgain:
I think this is absolutely what all countries do, have always done, will alsways do.

Are we better off not knowing about it? Should journalists just ignore it?

I'm not sure I care to know about something that will never change. I think government have to operate with some degree of secrecy when it comes to national security. So, in that way, I think we are better off not knowing about it because no one should know about it and journalists should not report it if it jeopardizes national security.

It's hard to talk about this in vague generalities though and that's sort of what you have to do when discussing this sort of info dump.

As a separate note, is there information that legit reporters had this information and ignored it? My understanding is that it went from the treasonous private to Assange.

This is my understanding as well.

Are you following the Wikileaks story?

Re: Are you following the Wikileaks story?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards