Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets
formfeed writes "According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'"
I wonder if some of the anti-WikiLeaks fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources. Update: 12/05 17:42 GMT by T : Yes, that's WikiLeaks, rather than (as originally rendered) WikiPedia. HT to reader Mike Hearn.
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?
Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian and Der Spiegel for sexual assault charges in an undecided yet country.
Go ahead and pressure Network Solutions to pull nytimes.com. See how well that works.
Hmmmm.... first internet war that we can actually observe and follow as it happens is not news for nerds, stuff that matters? Then what is? Where would nerds get their first-hand account? Whose embeded journalists would sit with the hackers at the NSA as they destroy the fibers of the internet to strain the wikileaks out of them?
The biases of Slashdot's editors and readers are numerous as well as obvious. Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc. Why are you surprised that they show a bias about Wikileaks too?
FTFA:
A well-known recluse
Reclusion: you're doing it wrong.
I think Wikileaks has been discussed ad nauseam here on /. I am a former insider, but a civilian now. My position is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on this debate. The U.S. needs to realize that even if they successfully drive Wikileaks from the internet, it is an idea whose time has come and there will be other whistle blower web sites from here on out. I am concerned that if the US makes it a crime to publish classified information obtained from sources, it will basically end investigative journalism and take the US one step closer to being like Russia or China. So instead of focusing on destroying Wikileaks, the US should focus on preventing leaks from occurring. Pvt Manning needs to be punished. His commanding officer, executive officer and security officer all need to be fired and sent into early retirement. Mr. Assange wouldn't have much of a web site if Pvt. Manning hadn't sent him those CDs.
Of course the US government declined to assist. "Hi, we just got a whole bunch of classified documents you'd rather us not have, and we'd like to publish them. Want to help us redact them?" Any answer the government gives other than "publish nothing" is basically approving Wikileaks publishing leaked documents.
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Why should they? AP is reporting that Wikileaks collaborated with five media outlets, but Associated Press is not one of those five outlets.
They are:
El Pais
Le monde
The Guardian
Der Spiegel
The New York Times
Press coverage today is more favorable to Wikileaks.
There's even talk that Assange might be Time's "Man of the Year".
Also, there are now 74 mirrors of Wikileaks.
The USG has nothing to fear from the NYT or any other news source. They are always interested in keeping access to government officials, so they never step over the line when reporting the news. They don't report on the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Editors at the major media companies are good friends with everyone in Washington and Wall Street, so you can't get good coverage there either.
Even looking at coverage of WikiLeaks, how many are reporting that the US State Department new immediately that the coup in Honduras was illegal, and then publicly stated a month later that they hadn't decided what had happened? How many are reporting that Hillary Clinton knew Saudi Arabia was the main funding source for the worst extremist groups in the world, but did not publicly reveal this to US Citizens for fear of damaging trade relations with the oil barons?
You would think that would even be front page news on Fox, who'd bread is buttered by fear mongering about muslim terrorists, but it's always below the fold, or on some opinion column that never sees the front page. That's because one of their main investors is a Saudi Prince.
A truly independent press is too dangerous for the United States to tolerate. It's told too many lies to too many people for too long. They know WikiLeaks has zero self-interest in American interests, and that's why the organization is so feared.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell
This is really interesting. From TFA: "The Times said it intends to publish only about 100 or so of the records. And the other news organizations that have the material said they likely will release only a fraction."
Well, this is mostly very boring stuff. Still, having only a handful of newspapers and some journalists try to find something interesting in this large pile of documents means that there will be gems that will not be found. These cables go back to 1966 and there must be very interesting details in there about things that just aren't on the radar for these journalists.
I'm really looking forward to Wikileaks publishing all of this.
That's the point. The answer 'publish nothing' is not recognized data-war tender. The U.S. is clearly hoping for meat space developments to solve this situation.
Otherwise they would have a strategy that involved dealing with the data on the table.
The Egyptians have apparently been saying this for years. The U.S. will enter into new theaters of combat with no concern for the opinion of established actors in the arena. Instead they listen with half an ear, then return to telling the established actors what the U.S. wants them to do.
The net result here is that WikiLeaks gets to start doling out National Security level assignments and drawing up the game plan. Currently Assange is only a few pieces short of being able support a cabinet, storm Sealand, and demand U.N. recognition of sovereignty. All because we are forcing his organization to grow up into a full fledged Intel agency and polarizing other sovereigns into his camp.
If anyone is worried about a stateless future ruled by paramilitary actors start taking notes. The U.S. government appears to be hellbent on making that future a reality.
I read most of the stuff published so far, and I wouldn't call anything in there boring. Sure, there is a lot of stuff that is of no great consequence, but I found nearly every document very interesting for someone who cares for international politics. What really surprised me is how well written most of them are - I kinda expected dry and boring bureaucrat speak, but found lots of very polished essays that were straight to the point.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Profit trumps ideology any day.
Profit IS ideology.
The people who are close to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. The people donating money to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. By a government that will stop at nothing to stop Julian Assange.
This means informants. This means entrapment. This means torture. This means psychological operations. This means black ops, false flags, black bag, honey trap operations.
This means ruined marriages, ruined careers, mysterious illnesses, mysterious criminal charges like tax evasion to further drain financial resources, psychiatric diagnosis from professionals like paranoid schizophrenia, ruined friendships, destroyed reputation, being labeled a pedophile, rapist, snitch/informant, or being entrapped / locked in prison and then being labeled any of these things.
The Government will do everything short of kill you. They'll try to make you kill yourself with psychological operations. They'll try to manipulate other people into killing you with rumors, smears, and character assassination, and they'll keep you from being able to make any money by lawsuits, blacklists, etc.
Internet war is just war. It's not something that geeks do on the internet with DDOS. It's when lives are permanently destroyed in the real world by blackmail, extortion, manipulation, humiliation, etc.
Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc.
You could probably combine those into a single "pro-freedom" or "pro-individual rights".
Support SETI@home
Cause you have a lot to learn.
When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power, and naked greed THEN we'll have a discussion about it. Until then tough shit for them. If it takes having Wikileaks and Julian Assange out there to clean it up then I say I want to see 100 or 1000 more just like them. Turn over every single rock under which any secret lurks. Secrecy is a tool of evil, pure and simple.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Do you want your life ruined over Wikileaks?
Let's say you're right. The government conspiracies are going to ruin the people who help Wikileaks. Then why are you trying to convince people not to help them? Better that they fight the good fight and some of them get taken down by The Man than that we all continue to live as serfs, no? You've pretty much established that you're more afraid of the CIA than you are brave enough to stand up for what's right; the least you could do is not try to convince other people to be cowards.
were far more damaging to the US govt than the State Department leaks have been so far.
The problem I think is the bank leaks. I suspect they will be on the same par as the other leaks, but banks being banks, the attacks from the establishment will be far greater in force.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
The US Media is useless and most people I've heard are quite misinformed about Wikileaks. This is NOT news, WikiLeaks has been working with major news outlets (mostly not in USA) for a while now. Back when the politicians were claiming lives lost and the huge evil of the war log leaks the Media didn't report that WikiLeaks was also working with news partners and the NYTimes was working on it with the Gov to make the leaks "responsible." Sure, mistakes were still made - it was not the big deal like it was blown into. The US Media doesn't think or work for a living, they just repeat what the Gov or talking heads or AstroTurf group says and hardly even moderates between those.
I'm all for redundant news about how WikiLeaks isn't the only one involved.
Notice how WikiLeaks is being targeted so much stronger now when instead of WAR information? This had to be the last straw, can't let average to stupid people think badly of our 'diplomacy'! Forget the losing of two wars and the MILLION+ dead people you can't give away our diplomatic policies! I don't think most people would be surprised if they leaked that Iraq was ONLY for oil but WikiLeaks would get bombed and Bush still wouldn't be within eyesight of protesters let alone prosecuted.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news