@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Quote:In Olga's list of "why we need" WLs, I ask in return, why do we need WLs?
It would be a wonderful thing, Art, if we
didn't need a Wikileaks to inform us.
You could perhaps make this arguments about the Mannings of the world, but not the Assanges and WLs. There is nothing about WLs itself that is inherently needed.
msolga wrote:
But unless our governments become a damn sight more transparent about what they're actually doing, we will have to depend on the likes of Wikileaks & whistleblowers to be properly informed in the future.
Sad, isn't it?
But this isn't what is happening, Olga.
Can you point to any measures by any government in light of Wikileaks to make more information public? Quite contrary, governments are putting more safegaurds on their info. WLs isn't the catalyst to transparency that many believe it is. It does many things, but it does everything retroactively. You cannot really argue that WLs makes us more informed for the
future, only the past. It is a good thing to see into the crimes of the past, but do not mistake this as a means to make an informed decision about what comes next.
Also remember, WLs having information is not the public having information. They, not you, choose what and when to release. Information is power, and trusting in them to act in your interest vice their own is naive. Has it been so long since we had the "poison pill?" Assange specifically used WL held information to protect himself. This does not bother you? I thought the whole need for wikileaks is that the info makes it to people, not that it is withheld. What makes you trust WLs in the way you distrust governments and corporations. If you look at how they restrict and distribute info, they are not so different.
msolga wrote:
In democracies we elect governments to represent us . It is a perfectly reasonable expectation that we're aware of what our governments doing on our behalf.
The fact is we haven't been.
You're quite correct, and I share your sentiments. That said, I'm not investing in some self-appointed gatekeeper of information. Did you elect Julian Assange? Do you have more or less say on his actions when compared to your own government?
msolga wrote:
Quote:Manning could have given the cables directly to the NYT, Guardian, etc. The appeal of WL was that they boasted that submitting info to them is safe and untraceable. For Manning, his choice of WL provided no such guarantee.
You seriously think that that would be such an easy thing for Manning to do?
It would be no more difficult.
msolga wrote:
And that the Guardian (with which Julian Assange had his initial arrangement with, before it breached its agreement with him & supplied the material to the NYT) would happily have published material supplied by private in the US army?
I don't think so.
Sure they would. Why you emphasize the fact he was a Private is totally irrelevant. Manning would have been able to give full substance, which does matter.
msolga wrote:
The point is that Wikileaks was an up & running, functional, completely-separate-from-the-mainstream media outlet. Which Manning (quite correctly, I think) deduced would be far more likely to publish & distribute the material rather than bury it.
We are talking about electronic documents. It's not like if he choose the wrong one, he would have missed his only chance. If he gave it to a group that buried it, he would still have amble options for groups that would not. Obviously these large newspapers took an interest in publishing the cables.
msolga wrote:
I sincerely doubt any mainstream media organization would have published that material if Wikileaks had not been involved.
I think that grants Wikileaks far too much credit.
msolga wrote:
Besides, Manning might well have deduced that he personally did not have the expertise to negotiate such an arrangement & took what he believed was the best route available to him. Who knows?
I'd agree if he had planning on selling the info. Being that he was giving it away, what negotiations do you believe would need to take place?
msolga wrote:
I believe that Wikileaks did its level best at that time to ensure that the material was properly handled.
Sure, mistakes were made. Sure, it was a flawed organization. It was by no means "perfect". But then, how many media organizations, inside & outside of the establishment mainstream, are?
What other media outlets do is not of importance. How poorly they do, does not give licence to sloppy handling. Your defense for being bad cannot be that others are worse or that it's simply the culture of media. If Assange likes to promote the idea that WLs is a media outlet and it is somehow above them, I'm especially not interested in this excuse for poor handling. If I'm to accept it, it only means that WL is not above the others, and we return to my original criticism: That Manning could have just taken his info to someone else.
msolga wrote:
Why hadn't investigative journalists employed by the NYT , the Guardian, etc, researched & published more of the issues we learned about only via Wikileaks?
You write about info when you get it. It seems an odd criticism of these groups to say that they should have wrote about things they did not yet know about or could prove. The fact that they did when WLs gave them the cables, only proves this point.
msolga wrote:
It seems to me that those newspapers were perfectly willing for Assange/Wikileaks to supply them with the material for their "cutting edge" stories (gratis) , also to take the credit for being so courageous & enlightened in publishing the leaks, while having done none of the ground work nor taken any of the risks themselves.
You just said that they would not publish it if Manning brought it to them. Further, Assange and WLs didn't do ground work, Manning did. If we are to believe Assange, Manning approached WLs, not the other way. This is an important detail for legal reasons, and for the purposes of comparing Assange to investigative journalists.
msolga wrote:
And now that the heat from governments has caused them to pull their heads in & cease publishing the material (which there is still lots of) they seem perfectly happy to allow Assange & Manning wear the consequences, as if it has nothing to do with them.
That's one analysis, but another is that Assange and WLs delayed release of materials for a drawn out effect. In doing so, these publications were put on WLs schedule. Between more releases, I suppose you believe these newpapers were obligated to shift their entire interest to WLs? Perhaps speculative "what's next from Wikileaks?" articles every day for months? I don't think so.
Let's not wander too far. This info is for us right? It's so we can be best informed--your words. So why did WLs get to deny you access, and reveal on their own timeline/agenda? Do you think they should have been able to choose when you get to make an informed decision?
Now that the info is out in full unredacted form, guess who is mad? Wikileaks. Why? Isn't putting it out there a great thing? Not if your power and authority is derived from the drawn out denial of access to said info. Wikileaks loses it's power, and then has pushed the blame to the Gaurdian. But why should WLs care? Wasn't this always the end game?
msolga wrote:
But without Assange & Manning they would never have had their moment of self-congratulatory glory. There certainly were no Bob Woodwards within their organizations who provided the material ... they received that material as a result of the very people they are now demonizing in their editorials (or ignoring the plight of, in the case of Manning)
I think that's hypocritical & a cowardly cop out.
And yet, when these groups published them, they granted authenticity to the cables to a public that would otherwise question the validity of a website they may or may not have heard of. Let's not pretend that WLs got nothing out of that relationship.
A
R
T
