Wikileaks and unlikely Heroes of our times ??

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Longboard, Apr 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Who watches the watchers:
    Julian Assange
    This is not a comment on the behaviour of the Us Army.
    The latest video and decoding has just served to highlight Wikileaks role.

    I do not believe Wikileaks is a 'perfect' organisation, but it does currently fill a valuable role.
    I am a believer in FOI.
    I do believe we can incorporate proper privacy protections with information releases, but I strongly believe in proper scrutiny of publicly owned decisions and disclosure of processes and decisions relating to the commonwealth.
    I loathe public and private hypocrisy.

    Wikileaks has been referenced 662 times on nytimes.com, 207 times on guardian.co.uk, 86 times on washingtonpost.com and 54 times on speigel.de.

    Perhaps not the most humble observation..nonetheless; impressive.

    Keep shining the light.
    We are in real danger of being kept more and more in the dark as our 'taken for granted freedoms' are being shredded..

    "Australians seem to be unusually drawn to the project" :shifty: ;)
    Wikileaks published a devastating expose of the Oz Govt's web censorship list recently. :thumb:

    Quick primer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPYeZ4VCGHo
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  2. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Yes, it does fill a valuable role...at least it did. I'm not going to completely bash the Army nor Wikileaks, but merely state my thoughts on the matter that is obviously being referred to. WikiLeaks has done a LOT of good, a LOT. However, this particular incident is not the first time that pieces of the puzzle have been left out of their "leaks". Also, please don't get it wrong, just like any other political organization (and they are one), there can be agendas, whether organization-wide or a few individuals.

    To me, Wikileaks, just as the EFF have begun looking for battles where there are none and becoming Crusader-like (and I don't mean that in a pleasant way). We need to be a bit careful what we read, see, and hear. It takes nothing in this age of high-powered computers, media organizations with agendas or political clout, and controversial and very heated issues to have only a small percentage of the entire story or picture presented to the public.

    As to the Army, no, they indeed are not perfect and never will be. Add in the fact that military operations and functions are ran more by "Desk Generals" (meaning lawmakers and others with no business doing so) instead of the men and women with their "boots on the ground", and you have even more possibilities for problems. In war, civilians get hurt or killed. As long as there are bombs and bullets, it will be this way. You can have all the tech you could possibly want, but when the ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ hits the fan and bodies are dropping, plans, mentalities they all change.

    Just as in Vietnam, you have the enemy being embedded within the civilian population, and you have civilians, either because of threat or need of money, work with the enemy. When either happens, innocent lives are going to be taken. We can play Couch Commander all we please and say this is how such and such should be done. But, until we put our feet on the ground and until we have bullets flying around us, with razor sharp shrapnel raining down on us, we really have no room to say anything at all.

    Ask yourselves another question, just how embedded and involved should reporters be in war? Are they needed? Yes. Should they be going to some of the places they do, bringing cameras into and interviewing enemy camps/combatants? No, they should not. They also do not need to go into as many operations as they do. The military has quite enough to do carrying out their mission and protecting their own soldiers without having to babysit a reporter as well.

    I'm not saying these things to start an argument on right or wrong, nor am I only defending one side over another. If what I say is controversial, so be it, it is merely my opinion, and my opinion will not make, break, or change anything. I'm simply repeating the old saying that there is always two sides to every story.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2010
  3. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    WikiLeaks is the 21st century version of the "Confidential Tip Line." With one big difference: after they get their tip and go through their verification procedures, they let the whole world know. It's a valuable and noble service, IMO.
     
  4. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
    Thank God for WikiLeaks - particularly since journalism is increasingly polluted by government agencies, PR professionals and others that have no interest whatsoever in objective news gathering. Engineering of consent has taken centre stage; the media serve as vehicles for generating and managing consensus rather than fulfil their original function as organs of public debate.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303499.html
     
  5. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    You mean like all network TV news and cable news? Show me a newspaper, magazine, or TV channel that does not have an agenda. Let's not play this game that only talk-radio and Fox News has an agenda.

    For decades the left has had sole control of the media, so obviously they weren't going to complain about the bias on their side. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and they have competition, they start crying like little children. I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the media has ever been fair.
     
  6. Wait what?!

    *sound of head banging against keyboard*
     
  7. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Exactly, you get it, many don't or just don't want to. The media has always been and always will be about ratings. Controversy brings viewers, it sells. I'm not saying that organizations like WikiLeaks, EFF, among others don't serve a good purpose. They certainly do, and they have helped many people. But don't for one moment think that politics is completely left out of the equation, and don't think that some stories are not very much intended to scare.

    They all have ties to the political world, and they all are very much interested in getting as much attention as possible. Those who don't think so are only fooling themselves.
     
  8. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Folks,

    Please leave politics off this site. Thread closed. Overtly political posts removed.

    Blue
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.