Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.
1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/27071...
With this policy in mind, is it any wonder that Army counterintelligence once wondered: "Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to conduct perception or influence operations to discredit the US Army?" -- http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
"We'll give you this tasty goodie to publish on your site, but you have to use it to further our political agenda".
Sounds like they couldn't resist the temptation. This is not what we want from a whistleblower protection site.
[1] is there an official word for that?
I never really got upset about Wikileaks providing commentary, because I never had the illusion that they were going to be impartial. Don't be lazy, apply some critical thinking, listen to different sources. Leaks are in their nature untrustworthy. Even intelligence agencies with all their highly educated analysts get things wrong.
Finally if you stop supporting Wikileaks because you don't like that they provide commentary, editorialize, make propaganda or whatever your view are of it. I don't really think you get what their doing or what's at stake.
I guess the truly unfortunate part is that people don't think critically by default. Encouraging critical thought seems like a far better/realistic goal than expecting content producers to act in a way that maximizes total "societal good", but that's [depressingly] still a completely far-fetched idea.
That's not a problem, I think, for the demographic here on HN (and other places). But increased coverage reaches more people; how many have been mislead because they didn't do the above?
That's what tastes bads to me.
> don't really think you get what their doing or what's at stake.
I'm even more cynical of them now. Indeed I think it's becoming clear what their intentions really are - it's to hold a firm political stance in how they present data.
Were I a whistle blower I am afraid I wouldn't consider that a legitimate or trustworthy avenue any more.
It seems we all just projected the role of neutral broker onto them. If nothing else, that shows what a crying need there is for a genuine neutral broker.
Edit: If Assange really cared about his stated goal -- maximal political impact -- he would have done better to let the video speak for itself. By spinning it so aggressively, Wikileaks made it easy for people to dismiss the video, and Wikileaks, as products of an ideological agenda. What it did quite effectively, though, is make Assange a celebrity du moment: he got on Colbert for pete's sake. Between the TV appearances and his juvenile cloak-and-dagger act, I think there's a case to be made that this isn't even about propaganda, it's about ego.
It is by no means irresponsible to call what happened "collateral murder".
It's what any right thinking person would do, care for the wounded, the 'rules of engagement' were probably not set up by the Iraqis if they are not allowed to care for their wounded.
update: i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?