but at the length truth will out.
January 1, 2011 4:19 AM   Subscribe

How WikiLeaks Enlightened Us in 2010.
CBS News did something really, really unusual for a major news organization.
It published an article about what Wikileaks has revealed.
Evidently, CBS is not of the opinion that their job is to conceal these things from the public, which is fairly unique.
As CBS stated back in July: It's an old conflict: the press vs. the government or, as a Mefite recently commented: - It's funny how everything is the issue besides what's in the fucking leaks.
posted by adamvasco (26 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: worthwhile post, but we don't want to get into the habit of cutting and pasting unattributed text from other blogs. Maybe someone else can make this post with their own phrasing? -- jessamyn



 
Weird. My newspaper has a whole section devoted to the leaks every day. You might want to try other media outlets. The Guardian is pretty good.
posted by bystander at 4:42 AM on January 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


great post.

I add that with cablesearch.org everyone can search cables and rate them. With this social tool, read cables and rank them by their importance will be easier.
posted by - at 4:46 AM on January 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


The Obama administration worked with Republicans during his first few months in office to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies that some considered torture.

Change you can believe in.
posted by JHarris at 4:58 AM on January 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Unique" is a fabsolute. "Fairly unique" is a foxy moron.

That said, this post is probably doomed.
posted by Wolof at 5:00 AM on January 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Talking about mainstream US media here.
Reminds me of 45 years ago. maybe.
posted by adamvasco at 5:02 AM on January 1, 2011


CBS News did something really, really unusual for a major news organization.
It published an article about what Wikileaks has revealed.


Is the NYTimes not a major news organization anymore?
posted by K.P. at 5:08 AM on January 1, 2011


Is the NYTimes not a major news organization anymore?

No, they're a collaborator.
posted by mhoye at 5:20 AM on January 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


This post is annoying because it's less about the content of the Wikileaks and more about getting a dig in against mainstream media, while ginned up on Digbyjuice. Which isn't bad, but boring at this stage.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:24 AM on January 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Erm what? Does the OP mean to imply that until now, all of the revelations regarding the content of the leaks I have read have in fact not been about the content of the leaks? My God, what have I been reading?!
posted by dougrayrankin at 5:36 AM on January 1, 2011


It is interesting how that meme that there was nothing of interest in the cables has withered so much over just the past couple of weeks.

Also:
A U.S. Army helicopter allegedly gunned down two journalists in Baghdad in 2007.

Allegedly nothing, it's right there on the damn tape.

U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers

What is disturbing here isn't just that it was done. What is disturbing is, why is it a secret? The charitable reason is that the government is trying to sustain public opinion towards continuing the war, to avoid a Vietnam-like situation of faltering resolve.

Pakistan's government has allowed members of its spy network to hold strategy sessions on combating American troops with members of the Taliban

Just, wow.

China was behind the online attack of Google

Did the State Department tell Google? Did that have something to do with Google's abandonment of censored Chinese search results?

That's just the stuff I could be bothered to remark upon. Pope Benedict impeded the Catholic child molestation investigation! Cuba's economic situation is becoming fatally dire! McDonalds attempted to slow US free trade efforts to improve its chances of winning a lawsuit in El Salvador!

Does Wikileaks have a right to exist? Of course it does, so long as it is legal; that is what freedom is about. But more than that, it's proving we need Wikileaks, or organizations like them.

Is there information in the cables that it would have been very nice if it hadn't been revealed? Oh, you had better believe it. The cables about the general locations of part of the US' nuclear arsenal in Europe for example.

But the culture of governmental secrecy has become so ingrained over the decades, with the stuff we really should have known lumped in with the stuff it actually was important to keep secret, that when it boiled over it was inevitable the two pots would be mingled together.

It is that culture that Assange is fighting against when he states that he wishes to destroy the invisible government. His means are maybe artless and cause incidental damage, but I am having a difficult time imagining a realistic other way for it to have happened. And in the long run, I think (hope) our nation will be healthier for it.
posted by JHarris at 5:36 AM on January 1, 2011 [6 favorites]


His means are maybe artless and cause incidental damage...

Interestingly enough, the same could be said of the Army helicopter allegedly gunning down two journalists in Baghdad in 2007.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:54 AM on January 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


And in the long run, I think (hope) our nation will be healthier for it.

It won't. This will all blow over eventually and things will get to exactly the way they were before. What Wikileaks did was pretty pointless. The American (and most societies who would be effected by this, including England, France, etc.) will OUTRAGE and then go back to their comfortable homes and comfortable lives and let things continue as they are.
posted by Malice at 6:01 AM on January 1, 2011


Great post with great framing! Two CBS News stories (one over five months old), a MeFi comment, and editorializing. Bravo.
posted by proj at 6:01 AM on January 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


The American (and most societies who would be effected by this, including England, France, etc.) will OUTRAGE and then go back to their comfortable homes and comfortable lives and let things continue as they are.

Yeah because Wikileaks the Internet and free, uncensorable global communication is going to disappear and everything will revert back to a Cold War level of information exchange in a month or two...

But, yes, if the OP thinks the media hasn't been reporting the leaks and their implications, they're probably looking at the wrong sort of media.
posted by Jimbob at 6:06 AM on January 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nothing new here. While the content may be of interest to some, overall nothing is either surprising or front-page-newsworthy.
posted by Ardiril at 6:09 AM on January 1, 2011


It's a great link collecting some fascinating stories that don't deserve to be buried in all the ancillary discussion about wikileaks, and - yes - very surprising that it comes from a US television outlet. Thanks, adamvasco.
posted by mediareport at 6:31 AM on January 1, 2011


still relevant.
posted by adamvasco at 6:35 AM on January 1, 2011


"some fascinating stories"

Which one?
posted by Ardiril at 6:36 AM on January 1, 2011


this leaks is so important i forgot to use capital letters.
posted by joe lisboa at 6:43 AM on January 1, 2011


Do not use the word "impactful."

It is not a word, and will never be a word as long as I am alive.

That is all.
posted by crazylegs at 6:44 AM on January 1, 2011


I like 'best of' stuff from WL because my time is limited and I don't have time to engage with everything in there without some kind of guidance. I need filters. Having said that, there are multiple open wikileaks FPPs. Pick one and append to it.

While the content may be of interest to some, overall nothing is either surprising or front-page-newsworthy.

Uhh. It's hard to know what to say to that. You must have a pretty high threshold for 'interesting'.
posted by Ritchie at 6:48 AM on January 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Crazylegs: but then how would you distinguish between things that impact greatly and ones that impact only weakly? We need a way to describe impactification.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:53 AM on January 1, 2011


Do not use the word "impactful."

I will action that immediately.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:58 AM on January 1, 2011


Informative post, inartfully framed. Meta commentary?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:25 AM on January 1, 2011




Can someone make Bruce Sterling ring in the new year like last year? Because that might actually be interesting.
posted by localhuman at 7:45 AM on January 1, 2011


« Older Royal Institution Christmas Lectures: inspiring...   |   WikiLeaks! It's a wiki that leaks! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments