Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bobo

Wikileaks

Recommended Posts

I haven’t really followed the whole wiki leaks thing to closely, never even gone to the site. But I’ve heard that some of the documents have put lives in danger.

Just so that this doesn't confuse the discussion, this is actually a fictional talking point thus far. No government (including the US) has made the claim that any of the leaks have lead to any form of harm to any individual. The Pentagon has actually stated that it can't find any instance of anyone being harmed by the leakage of documents by wikileaks.

 

This is a narrative that was introduced by people with an agenda, and then repeated ad infinitum by corporate news media. So it's an example of how corporatized news media really fails to inform. It can accomplish the opposite: it can confuse and/or distract the public with misleading arguments and info. And disinformation/distraction is a part of the process of manufacturing public consent. And that's a problem because it's not really journalism's function to push agendas. Ideally its function isn't even to formulate opinion. Its function is to find out what's going on and report it. Which is really what wikileaks is attempting to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so that this doesn't confuse the discussion, this is actually a fictional talking point thus far. No government (including the US) has made the claim that any of the leaks have lead to any form of harm to any individual. The Pentagon has actually stated that it can't find any instance of anyone being harmed by the leakage of documents by wikileaks.

 

This is a narrative that was introduced by people with an agenda, and then repeated ad infinitum by corporate news media. So it's an example of how corporatized news media really fails to inform. It can accomplish the opposite: it can confuse and/or distract the public with misleading arguments and info. And disinformation/distraction is a part of the process of manufacturing public consent. And that's a problem because it's not really journalism's function to push agendas. Ideally its function isn't even to formulate opinion. Its function is to find out what's going on and report it. Which is really what wikileaks is attempting to do.

 

I'm so disappointed that the Western media has become this way. I'm a Westerner but I have to rely on Al Jazeera to create broadcasts that don't treat me like I'm an imbecile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if your brother got killed because some guy from another country thought that your government needed to be spanked and illegally obtained and published classified information, you probably wouldn't call him a hero either. - just saying.

 

 

 

I'd like to think that no one wants anyone to come and any harm over this issue, although it is a valid concern. I advise watching that David Frost interview that Destro posted, as it covers almost everything that you have raised in that sentence I have quoted.

 

Wikileaks shouldn't be viewed as being Anti US, because thats simply not the case. These leaks have come from an arm of the US government, and due to that fact, will be very US centric in their nature. Alot of governments have been caught out over what wikileaks has published.

Nor is wikileaks solely the work of non-US citizens. Bradly Manning has perhaps played the most major hand in this issue by releasing this information to wikileaks. Wheather he is a patriot or a traitor is an interesting subject in itself, but I personally feel he isn't being given the credit he is due over this. I wish he could release a statement, because I'd love to hear his reasons for doing what he has done.

Edited by Bobo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid of no Americans, as long as they are knitting

my thoughts exactly! If i was on public transport and i saw some scruffy guy knitting a scarf, I would feel much safer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so that this doesn't confuse the discussion, this is actually a fictional talking point thus far. No government (including the US) has made the claim that any of the leaks have lead to any form of harm to any individual. The Pentagon has actually stated that it can't find any instance of anyone being harmed by the leakage of documents by wikileaks.

 

This is a narrative that was introduced by people with an agenda, and then repeated ad infinitum by corporate news media. So it's an example of how corporatized news media really fails to inform. It can accomplish the opposite: it can confuse and/or distract the public with misleading arguments and info. And disinformation/distraction is a part of the process of manufacturing public consent. And that's a problem because it's not really journalism's function to push agendas. Ideally its function isn't even to formulate opinion. Its function is to find out what's going on and report it. Which is really what wikileaks is attempting to do.

 

Lack of actual proof that this information led to any individual being harmed is not a good defense of the release of the information itself. The Wikileaks information is harmless until someone decides to use it. Had they released information detailing vulnerabilities in Obama's secret service detail, it would be ludicrous to conclude that this information is harmless since the president is still alive. Furthermore, proof that this information directly harmed any one individual is unlikely to ever be produced, since those who would seek to do harm using this information are not likely to announce the fact that they used Wikileaks information to in their planning, and their word wouldn't be especially reliable if they did. By the way, if you're going to assume that this talking point is manufactured by people with an agenda, then the same degree of skepticism needs to be applied to the statements from organizations like the Pentagon that you use as support for that argument.

 

If one believes that exposing the truth always leads to good things, then there's no need to debate the specifics of this issue since that's an absolute moral position that theoretically covers all situations. If you can think of even one situation where exposing the truth could plausibly lead to harm/ wrongdoing, and therefore should be avoided, then the debate shifts to what information was exposed under what circumstances, etc. In this scenario I find the blanket defenses of the entire Wikileaks dump to be unconvincing.

 

Finally, there's the inevitable issue of politics and bias. We all like to pretend our positions are purely logical, but I sincerely doubt we'd be hearing the same passionate defenses of exposing the truth from the same people if the subject of these leaks were an organization that would tend to have the support of a different political demographic than the US typically would, or if those documents were filled with the personal and business dealings of the people on this board for that matter.

 

I was knitting the entire time I wrote this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take Wikileaks over our 24-hour news-entertainment stations any day. The most honest, pertinent journalism done in this country in years.

 

R

 

I'll take that answer as my fave. But hey look! I just knitted a tiny taco

tinytaco.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my previous post may have come off a little strong. Again I really can’t say too much because I just haven’t done my homework on this. So as for the whole wiki leaks putting lives in danger thing, I really didn’t know if anything of that nature had actually been published, I just assumed it had. I’d have to agree with you all that western media is a joke and not surprisingly where I heard the rumor that jeopardizing info was leaked. I guess it’s just kind of personal for me with family fighting a war they don’t totally agree with.

="="="="="="=" World’s first digitally knitted blanket biggrin.gif

"="="="="="="=

="="="="="="="

"="="="="="="=

="="="="="="="

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so disappointed that the Western media has become this way. I'm a Westerner but I have to rely on Al Jazeera to create broadcasts that don't treat me like I'm an imbecile.

 

Al Jazeera might not treat you like an imbecile, but if you think they're somehow a noble and honest establishment you might want to check out the wikileaks on them.

They're a political pupet just like any other news network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Jazeera might not treat you like an imbecile, but if you think they're somehow a noble and honest establishment you might want to check out the wikileaks on them.

They're a political pupet just like any other news network.

 

I don't believe anyone or anything is Black or White. It all appears as shades of grey to me. I can assure you all news networks aren't the same. The BBC and FOX News operate on different levels although not as different as I would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You WISH your fuckin troll thumbs looked that beautiful.

 

(the other ones are equally adorable)

 

-m

 

Are you claiming that the extremely feminine, and well manicured hands holding the taco are not mine? I have a skin and nail regiment I worked on for 3 months straight just for that one photograph. The photograph of the taco I knitted for your mom. I told you last month I took pictures of your mom's taco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you claiming that the extremely feminine, and well manicured hands holding the taco are not mine? I have a skin and nail regiment I worked on for 3 months straight just for that one photograph. The photograph of the taco I knitted for your mom. I told you last month I took pictures of your mom's taco.

Ooo... and he goes for the mom.

I've been on the forum a while and I've seen some dirty shit... but I've never seen anybody need to play a mom card.

I must have struck a deep nerve with the "troll thumbs".

 

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

 

-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how come now anything mentioned in the wikileaks is somehow 100% true

 

"The processes of perception routinely alter what humans see. When people view something with a preconceived

concept about it, they tend to take those concepts and see them whether or not they are there.

This problem stems from the fact that humans are unable to understand new information,

without the inherent bias of their previous knowledge. A person’s knowledge creates his or her reality as much as the truth,

because the human mind can only contemplate that to which it has been exposed.

When objects are viewed without understanding, the mind will try to reach for something that it already recognizes,

in order to process what it is viewing. That which most closely relates to the unfamiliar from our past experiences,

makes up what we see when we look at things that we don’t comprehend."

 

Phenomenology of perception, By Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Colin Smith,

Translated by Colin Smith, Contributor Colin Smith, Edition: 2, illustrated, reprint,

Published by Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0-415-27841-4, 9780415278416, pg. 484-486.

 

 

Or we just go with "42"......

 

Cheers

Lennart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People rarely see their own nation as others see them. Most people probably see their country as, on balance, superior in many respects to other countries. For a start, other countries are largely populated by foreigners, and I don't suppose the word "foreign" is really a complement in any language. National media feeds this tendency; noone ever sold less newspapers by being chauvinistic, racist or nationalistic. We can probably extend the "Lake Wobegon Effect" to whole countries.

Accidents of history (US has not been invaded since independence), geography (largely isolated), and size (so much going on at home, that the press doesn't need to look overseas), all probably lead to this effect being more pronounced in the U.S.

 

In many ways the UK is just as much the victim of such arrogance - just read 90% of our print media - in case anyone thinks I am pointing the finger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The processes of perception routinely alter what humans see. When people view something with a preconceived

concept about it, they tend to take those concepts and see them whether or not they are there.

 

thanks for running with that. this wikileaks is like hegelian dialectic 2.0 because not only is there a reaction desired by the ruling class (internet legislation) we get the side effect of this body of truth that hasn't been questioned for accuracy or authenticity in the rush to say if its transparancy is good or treason

 

long renders have made me an occasional internet conspiracy hobbyist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...