The Real Danger of Wikileaks

[mrgrouch]

i fail to see what was the danger of wikileaks you speak of… it is true that some news papers do poor reports of the leaked cables, i’ve seen it several times in the brazilian and mexican news papers, but all that shows is the poor ethics of the news paper in question or the opportunism of some news editor.

if the new zealand herald made an inaccurate report of a speech made by john key, would say “that’s the problem with letting john key speak”?

cheers

 

[johnHorn]

Maybe mistaking the cables for facts instead of for leaked documents, but the danger of media then is even bigger. That is always a risk, trying to figure out what happened based on propaganda most certainly can lead one down the wrong path certain elements may refer to facts others less so while with the NewZealand thing well less so If it's the cable gate, then these would be the opinions of the diplomats so it doesn't really discredit the official story which non the less, doesn't become any less true, unless you really believe your government is virtuous the other picture still remains true though painting threw the eyes of economic compromise assuming this is anything more than the opinion of the diplomats.

There seems to be more at work here than political establishments trying to protect their access to information as an instrument of authority. IMHO it appears the origin of the politicos anger over Wikileaks seems to be the way in which the publication of classified papers, whether they expose real secrets or not, undermines the ability of political elites to present themselves as the all-powerful guardians of secret knowledge essential to their country's well-being.

Thats at-least one way to put that very same thing.

ETA1:The only liberal agenda that... probably gets undermined this is one of international cooperation which will be made fun of increasingly. Yes just make fun of them let's conspire against the people because they need to have weapons! they can't be safe without weapons!
ETA2:So yeah... :-| I think we see the same things over and over again, that doesn't deminish the value of the leaks the leaks still tell it's worse than expected and to some extent worse than acceptable. so while it won't be easy to put together the surprising bit's, the more down to earth stuff is surprising and shocking for most I guess. And confirms the suspicion of others.

 

[Oliver]

The real Danger of Wikileaks so far - some people got fired because of the leaks:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn

 

[Oliver]

Also, according to the State Departments estimate, Wikileaks isn't that dangerous after all:

WikiLeaks has caused little lasting damage, says US state department

The Guardian - ‎6 hours ago‎
The damage caused by the WikiLeaks controversy has caused little real and lasting damage to American diplomacy, senior state department officials have ...

 

[ddt]

So, in conclusion, I am curious as to whether anyone else has come across a similar situation, where the media has been presenting the diplomatic cables in a very different light to the actual contents. Is this the terrible behaviour of one particularly bad media outlet, or part of a pattern?

I'm with banquetbear here: the cable clearly shows that the embassy takes a partisan position in this, and especially paragraph 24 shows they are willing to help the pharmaceutical companies in their efforts.

Sure, many people will only read the newspaper article or see the TV show analyzing the cables. But, as Oliver pointed out, it is not much effort to find and read the actual cables which, without exception AFAIK, have been put online also by the media reporting on them. I think that is the big boon of wikileaks: before, you'd hardly have the underlying documents being analyzed in the media at your disposal, now they're only a mouse click away.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Also, according to the State Departments estimate, Wikileaks isn't that dangerous after all:

Makes you wonder if the story isn't sexy enough for the US mainstream media or ???. I'm sure there'll be some back page newspaper paragraph on it or one line on CNN eventually.

From the story in the Guardian:

A congressional official briefed on the reviews told Reuters news agency that the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. "I think they want to present the toughest front they can muster," the official said.

I'm a believer the reason we have milquetoast news has to do with what sells, not to do with some CT about who controls the information (Fox News excepted, of course, we know who controls that news product). So that leaves me asking a question, will we see more of this story or not? And if we don't, is it because the story isn't sensational enough to sell? Or is it because the corporate controlled media also would like Wikileaks stopped so is in support of the White House efforts to gin up the charges?

The latter is problematic because how would the media owners get the message to reporters not to make a big deal of this? I don't think there is a mechanism in place for that. I brought this up in a political science class a couple years back. I asked the two professors (it was jointly taught seminar on whether it was the economy or religion that had the biggest impact on US elections) why was it there were many very sellable sensational stories that did not make it into the mainstream media?

Their answer was the culture among the news investigators and the news reporters is like an old boys club. Not necessarily the gender aspect of the club, but the people they were, the people they hang out with, who they go to for interviews, those aspects of the group. And that makes sense here.

Anyway, it will be interesting if this story has legs or fades into the woodwork. It will be interesting if Holder proceeds with trying to prosecute Assange or to further block Wikileaks from receiving financial support whether the story resurfaces. It will be interesting to see if Holder lets his threats of finding a way to prosecute Wikileaks fade into the woodwork.

And when the trial of Manning gets going, then what?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I think that is the big boon of wikileaks: before, you'd hardly have the underlying documents being analyzed in the media at your disposal, now they're only a mouse click away.

As well we now have so much more easy access to international news outlets, and bloggers willing to sift through the cables and bring things to the public's attention the old boys club established US media didn't.

 

[Oliver]

Makes you wonder if the story isn't sexy enough for the US mainstream media or ???. I'm sure there'll be some back page newspaper paragraph on it or one line on CNN eventually.

After CNN was so obsessed with Assange [while virtually completely ignoring the cables contents, of course], there is no reason to believe that they will even mention the State Departments estimate.

As I admitted in another thread: Fox News showed more journalistic integrity than CNN concerning the cables very content.

Boy, that's so sad.

Also, I just checked Fox News, they didn't mention it either [yet]:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?&q=wikileaks&sort=date

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it is more worrisome than sad. Fortunately we still have the Net.

 

[Toontown]

I think it is more worrisome than sad. Fortunately we still have the Net.

Yes, I can hardly believe how fortunate we all are. The net makes it possible for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet to be a propagandist. In addition to the deeply suspect media infecting vast swaths of the monkeyball.

It's all so fortunate, I could just spit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I can hardly believe how fortunate we all are. The net makes it possible for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet to be a propagandist. In addition to the deeply suspect media infecting vast swaths of the monkeyball.

It's all so fortunate, I could just spit.

So your preference is for big corporate controlled media conglomerates to serve you milquetoast news instead?

 

[Toontown]

So your preference is for big corporate controlled media conglomerates to serve you milquetoast news instead?

False dichotomy.

 

[gumboot]

i fail to see what was the danger of wikileaks you speak of… it is true that some news papers do poor reports of the leaked cables, i’ve seen it several times in the brazilian and mexican news papers, but all that shows is the poor ethics of the news paper in question or the opportunism of some news editor.

if the new zealand herald made an inaccurate report of a speech made by john key, would say “that’s the problem with letting john key speak”?

cheers

That's kind of my point. I'm saying it isn't the leak at all that's the issue, but our media.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

False dichotomy.

Feel free to explain your preference.

 

[Toontown]

The real danger of Wikileaks:

You leak to them like a self-important little weenie. Then you get busted for treason and you go down the river for 30 to life.

Get it, weenies?