home

Why WikiLeaks?

In my earlier discussion of Wikileaks (stating my disagreement with Ezra Klein), I neglected to discuss "why Wikileaks?" When I say why, I mean why would leakers choose Wikileaks as their publisher rather than a mainstream press organ. The reason is the lack of trust the Media has earned by its performance of the last 20 years.

Via mistermix of Balloon Juice, Jay Rosen hits this point very well. mistermix summarizes:

Here’s the key point:

The main reason why Wikileaks causes so much anxiety with our journalists is that they haven’t really faced the fact that the watchdog press they treasured so much died under George Bush. It failed, and instead of rushing to analyze this failure and prevent it from ever happening again, instead of a truth-and-reconciliation-commission-style effort that would look at how could this happen, mostly what our journalists did, with a few exceptions, was they just went on to the next story. The watchdog press died, and what we have is Wikileaks instead.

He also points out that Wikileaks success is driven by the sources’ putting more trust in Wikileaks than the press. [. . .] If we can ever get past the Assange distraction, the big Wikileaks story is how it is a response to the failure of mainstream journalism [. . .]

Precisely. This actually well explains the loathing the Media has directed towards Assange. He stands as an indictment of them.

Speaking for me only

< It Only Takes One Vote To Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire | GOP Fights For Tax Cut For Wall Street >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "died under George Bush" (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:45:36 AM EST
    maybe
    but it had been on life support for a decade or so.  think Monica.


    Meh ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    Quality journalism has ALWAYS been the exception rather than the rule.

    Parent
    Seriously, the media is as useless as (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:22:21 AM EST
    Baghdad Bob was...and not nearly as entertaining.

    Last night I was making dinner while NBC Nightly news was on, and it was a symphony of what I could only describe as propaganda.

    Lisa Meyers did the Wikileaks story, and once again, all we heard was the government's side of the story - it was all about the leaker with no attention whatsoever to what has been leaked - or why.  Nothing about what the government is choosing to keep from us, nothing about what we might be entitled to know; she might as well have ended her "report" with "I'm Lisa Meyers, and the White House approved my report."

    The other movement in this symphony was Brian Williams giving a platform to the Frick and Frack Brothers: Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, leading them along the path they wanted to travel, making their case for the report just issued; there was not one word uttered by anyone with an opposing view, other than Brian Williams gratuitously quoting Jamie Galbraith so that Frick and Frack could respond - and he did no follow up questioning their responses.  Brian Williams and NBC put on another government-approved report to advance a plan that has been trashed by more qualified economic and monetary-policy experts than you could shake a stick at - without ever allowing those opposing views to be aired in any substantive way.

    So, of course Wikileaks - we seem to have no other way to get information anymore.

    And count me as one more person very much looking forward to the Wikileaks bank report...


    It is very disheartening (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    watching any news program right now.  It is positively scripted and full of crap, all set up to make me see a specific light.  If I didn't specifically seek out all the facts and work all morning to know what was really going on, I would not be informed at all.....period.

    Parent
    they were pretty (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    positive about it on Joe this morning.  they had the guy on from time, the guy is on the cover with the caption 'do you want to know a secret with and american flag taped over his mouth, and they talked about to major articles on this that both sounded pretty positive with both basically saying that this was a good thing for the US and for our relations abroad.


    Parent
    here (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    OT Capt (none / 0) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    I provided a link to what I was referencing, new post...read the reviews of the product.

    Parent
    if I still lived in LA (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    I would want it for commuting

    Parent
    That was a refreshing take (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:19:28 AM EST
    I like the talk about over classification.  I think its true and I think it is hurting our democracy.  I understand that things will need to be classified, but not every damned thing.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    I think that a whole lot is classified that shouldn't be, just because it might embarrass the government or make the citizens angry.

    Parent
    a symphony ... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    ... of propaganda.

    Sounds about right.

    Parent

    The bankster papers... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    I too can't wait...BofA stock stumbled in anticipation!

    If I stumbled upon a monster scoop, I sure as hell wouldn't call NBC/GE, ABC/Disney, or Fox Corp...I'd give it to a guy like Julian so it wasn't wasted or spun into smithereens.  

    Parent

    Me too, but we have a peep show (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    in a NYT op-ed today (Too Big to Succeed), by Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. In his article, Mr. Thomas reviews the steps taken by the Treasury and Federal Reserve that he feels may have saved the economy from ruin.

    However, he also notes that despite the massive public assistance given to sustain the banking industry, little has changed on Wall Street. He asks how it is possible that post-crisis legislation leaves large financial institutions still in control of our country's economy, and posits one answer to be that these institutions have even greater political influence than they had before the crisis--noting that the four largest financial firms spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying.

    And, in an interesting comment for a Federal Reserve officer, he reports that ..."a member of Congress from the Midwest reluctantly confirmed for me that any candidate who runs for national office must go to NYC, home of the big banks, to raise money."  Mr. Hoenig better have his house in order, or Interpol will be on his trail.

    Parent

    Don't know about that, Dog (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    As of 1:19 PM EST, Bank of America is up +.31 (+2.79%).  The KBW Bank Index is up 2.9%, the biggest gain in a month.  Link.  It seems as if the investors and the Masters of the Universe don't care much about how sleazy BoA, or any of the big banks and financial institutions, have been.

    Parent
    It bounced back then... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    I heard it fell 3 points when the rumors first broke about a Wikileaks release of bank docs.


    Parent
    Oh the bank report (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Faust on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    I dream about it at night.

    Parent
    The bank report..... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    As I was in the car this morning, I heard a clip on NPR from somebody-or-other at Bank of America (can't recall the name), who basically said that BoA thinks it may well be them.  I think so, too.  I also do wonder about the timing of the Interpol arrest warrant for Assange, which followed the Swedish arrest warrant.  I though the Swedes had dismissed the allegations last August?  (Not that I want to get into tinfoil hat territory here.  It's entirely possible that new evidence has been found about the sexual assault allegations.  Or not.  The Swedes never did seem like the type of country which would bow to pressure from the United States, but OTOH, they now have a fairly conservative government- at least, conservative for the Swedes.)

    Parent
    What I think......... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    I think they will want his a$$ for the bank leaks much more than the military leaks or diplomacy leaks.  I think those in charge right now fear that more than anything and if he does it they will want his head on a pike.

    Parent
    Tracy, you may well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:31:01 AM EST
    be right.  Not that they're happy about the military or diplomatic leaks, but let's face it- the banks hold an incredible amount of power, not just in this country, and BoA is the biggest U.S. bank.

    Parent
    Media today would sting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    No one should go to standard media as they would turn the person over to the govt or corp and make the news themselves being part of a sting.

    I want additional means for whistleblowers to get their info out too though the reality is the elite are going to do everything they can to infiltrate and destroy any challenges to their corruption.

    the "watchdog" press expired (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:42:39 AM EST
    during the first clinton administration, and was replaced with a "sex and scandal" press, featuring such clinically insane opinionators as maureen dowd.

    when paris hilton's doings rate more column inches than reporting about the necessity of invading afghanistan and iraq do, the mainstream press has abrogated its standing as the domestic guardian of democracy.

    David Corn (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:53:45 PM EST
    Saw that (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    Anyone who is surprised, please raise your hand.

    But I forget - this is the most progressive administration we've seen in our lifetimes.

    Parent

    I posted a comment (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    on the NYT comment page regarding their oh so selective publishing of the Wikileaks.

    I said what happened to the time when the press sought the truth?

    I skimmed hundreds of other comments--saw none that raised the same point.  They were all either hang Wikileaks or hang the NY Times.

    We are well trained, now.

    There is a chasm (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Catesby on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    between 'the press' and 'the media'.  Except people have forgotten that and think the media are the only legitimate press.

    The media has become (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    a part of the apparatus that manipulates the people politically.  I suppose they need to agree to some of this in order to have the access they want.  I may be chapped at Assange because IMO he has put innocent people at risk, but he is owes nobody and nobody owns him.  Our press and pundits have become so distorted and manipulative and such crap dealers that they themselves are somewhat responsible for Assange's success.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    I'm waiting for the Wikileaks dump -- on the press.

    But please make it after the one on the "large bank" which Reuters is saying is BofA.

    Parent

    Every form of communication (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    is potentially subject to manipulation.

    There was a time in the early days of political blogs when a lot of people didn't really understand that.  I think that a lot of people still don't.

    It doesn't matter what or where you are reading, everything should be taken with a grain of salt and to the best of the reader's ability put into the context of the time and the purveyor of said reading material.

    I am sure that wikileaks doesn't publish everything that they receive - they are going to miss something sometime or over emphasize something else.  Editorial judgments are always going to color information.  That's just the way it is.  The only real distinction between the traditional media and other outlets right now is that the traditional media were blatantly active in crafting propaganda and omitting important facts that did a disservice to their masters...  But they are not the only ones who do that and it is the responsibility of the reader to consume more than just one version of a story - to read and gather more information - before forming opinions - especially on really important stuff like whether or not to go to war.

    Parent

    Has anyone seen 3 Days of the Condor (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    starring Robert Redford in the 70s? The movie ends with the bad saying "You son of a b**ch" after Redford took his classified info to the New York Times, with a dramatic shot of the NYT building in this climactic scene.

    The ending is laughable now, but apparently fairly believable then.

    Well, (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    at least the Times is publishing significant excerpts from the documents.

    You have to at least acknowledge that much.

    Parent

    Would they have published any of it.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by magster on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    had they been given the only copies of these documents?  I doubt it. They are only publishing it because its available elsewhere and they want their usual readers not exploring other sources for information.

    Parent
    They're publishing what the (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    White House has approved for them to publish...

    Via Glenn:

    Then we have The New York Times, which was denied access to the documents by WikiLeaks this time but received them from The Guardian.  That paper's Executive Editor, Bill Keller, appeared in a rather amazing BBC segment yesterday with Carne Ross, former British Ambassador to the U.N., who mocked and derided Keller for being guided by the U.S. Government's directions on what should and should not be published (video below):

    KELLER:  The charge the administration has made is directed at WikiLeaks: they've very carefully refrained from criticizing the press for the way we've handled this material . . . . We've redacted them to remove the names of confidential informants . . . and remove other material at the recommendation of the U.S. Government we were convinced could harm National Security . . .

    HOST (incredulously):  Just to be clear, Bill Keller, are you saying that you sort of go to the Government in advance and say:  "What about this, that and the other, is it all right to do this and all right to do that," and you get clearance, then?

    KELLER:  We are serially taking all of the cables we intend to post on our website to the administration, asking for their advice. We haven't agreed with everything they suggested to us, but some of their recommendations we have agreed to:  they convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.

    ROSS:  One thing that Bill Keller just said makes me think that one shouldn't go to The New York Times for these telegrams -- one should go straight to the WikiLeaks site.  It's extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says about this with the U.S. Government, but that says a lot about the politics here, where Left and Right have lined up to attack WikiLeaks - some have called it a "terrorist organization."

    My bold.

    Kinda makes your mouth drop open doesn't it?

    Parent

    A couple of investigative reporters (none / 0) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    took down a presidency...I'm thinking all the presidents since then are making sure it doesn't happen to them.

    Parent
    Ooof (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:09:32 PM EST
    Kinda makes your mouth drop open doesn't it?

    Yes.

    It does.


    Parent

    Except Bill Keller stated NYT (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    checked w/the WH b/4 publishing anything.  

    Parent
    Of course the Times did... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    can't jeapordize their "access"...aka their sweet gig of sitting on their lazy latte-sipping arses and waiting for Uncle Sam to drop Uncle Sam-friendly stories/lies in their laps.

    Wikileaks is the new Times, the Times is now a subsidiary of the president's press secretary.

     

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    didn't know that.
    It explains some, shall we say, lack of detail.

    Parent
    Later... (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    I was reading in the Times about how much the leaked cables revealed about the corruption in the Karzai government.

    I was wondering why the White House would want this released - assuming they OKed it.

    Parent

    I don't think the corruption of the (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:43:25 PM EST
    Karzai government is any secret at this point. And it doesn't hurt us to remind the world of that every now and then in preparation for the inevitable day we cut the Karzai gov loose.

    Parent
    They have the final scene on youtube... (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    here and the quote is "you poor dumb son of a b", and there's a little twist after that quote that makes the scene a little less laughable as far as the almighty NYT goes.

    Parent
    Greenwald agrees with you (none / 0) (#21)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    Psst. BTD agrees with Greenwald's (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    post from yesterday.  

    Parent
    Actually, they both agree with ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    Jay Rosen. I was thinking of the update to today's column, though you're right that some of these points were made in yesterday's column.

    Parent