Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
We could always agree not to mention the "A" word further - if people actually want to talk about the content rather than the person.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m not sure that that’s a line ‘the left’ should seem to be quite so comfortable pushing. And I think that so many seem to be very comfortable pushing it is something to give a shit about.
That's what I was trying to say. But apparently it's not important.
-
I think it's misdirection, whichever way it comes from. You'll always find idiots who are prepared to pre-empt a court case, claim that they know the motivations of the accusers, or that the accused is definitely guilty. So what? Who cares? Would you say "The Left" as a whole is guilty of this? Obviously not. So? You can bring in spurious links like that FDL rant until the cows come home, and continue doing it whilst they're in the shed. Why you'd want to do that, it beats me.
-
Because even if there are real complaints underlying the prosecution, these particular victims aren't worthy of notice, let alone focus (and no parties benefit from this contempt).
But go for it, talk about the cables.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But go for it, talk about the cables.
it would make a pleasant change..
-
Well, has this piece from the Atlantic been linked to yet? Because it still puts the campaign to discredit Assange front and centre but at the service of making excellent points about what WikiLeaks represents in relation to conventional journalism.
(When I say "campaign to discredit Assange" I don't mean to imply that his legal troubles in Sweden are part of a conspiracy, or that the accusations are false or trivial - although regrettably the author of the article does.)
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Hey, I gave it a go on the last page... a whole post about a single cable without reference to he who shall not be named or 'the issue'.
To be honest, and perhaps it's stating the obvious, I find it hard to be as interested in the cables individually as I perhaps should be (successful misdirection bingo). I think Giovanni linked to that article about he who shall not be named and his motivations and theories. And the idea that I'm just some pair of eyes to scan these releases in order to make the authoritarian producers of them stop talking to each other seems somehow dehumanising.
I mean, I realise I don't really matter to many people, but to be taken for granted quite so openly... it weirdly makes looking at them seem like a chore, no matter how interesting they may be in their own right.
However foolish and shallow that is, it does impact on my interaction with the story.
-
If the cables are actually that interesting, then there is nothing stopping anyone from saying interesting things about them.
There is however something quite frustrating about the insistence that the conversation dwell on one specific aspect of the issue, and that alone.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
And the idea that I'm just some pair of eyes to scan these releases in order to make the authoritarian producers of them stop talking to each other seems somehow dehumanising.
Really? Because I would have thought that the community involvement that comes into making sense of the information, giving it context - a task that is not devolved solely to professional journalists - is actually the opposite of dehumanising.
-
There seems to be criticism of the leaks coming from Human Rights Groups as well.
WikiLeaks response to this criticism is less than stellar.
-
They called Reporters sans Frontieres, "reporters sans facts" - that seemed tarter than the tweets actually used in the article.
-
What an amazing capacity for self delusion some humans have. Pointing out that most of the known issues about the alleged rape centres on a broken condom and that therefore discussion of the circumstance is both pointless and ill-informed results in a litany of BS about mentioning the condom being an attempt to trivialise rape!
Following that my entreaty to at least discuss the one issue in all the cables that is more than a passing mention of NZ because it infers NZ troops are involving themselves in territory outside their region of responsibility, rouses 1 response dismissive of the cable's import before going back to hammering on the personality of one of the messengers.Is anyone even a little concerned that the Herald's reporting of the recent cable releases include 1 article boasting about how NZ was 'mentioned' at a conference in India, with no real indication of what 'we' said or what anyone said about 'us'. And another alleging that Hillary Clinton reckons the Southern Cross submarine cable is of strategic significance to the Pacific! Wow that's news!
When I was a kid who read too much growing up in 50's NZ, capital 'Z's always used to catch my eye because every now and again some foreign book would actually mention NZ! In the 70's if a celebrity arrived, he/she would be asked "What do you think of NZ? b4 they had gotten out of the Mangere terminal. (not that any answer the least bit negative would have been tolerated so why ask?)So far the reportage in NZ's media has been virtually all of that ilk and I see why from reading this thread.
I notice the newest PA thread is about the paucity of reporting on what exactly it is NZ is doing in Afghanistan, a thread which at the time I came past it into here to see if anyone had expended any effort considering the implication of NZ's military being portrayed by a US pro-consul as dutiful soldiers of empire, unlike 'old europe' who seemed more reluctant to have their citizens killed for the sake of a free trade agreement or whatever.
People prefer to avoid confronting NZ's involvement in the invasion and subjugation of others, same as everywhere; what is surprising is that they are so blatant about remaining ignorant of what is done in their name.
Hypocrisy is normally a shameful vice. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
WikiLeaks response to this criticism is less than stellar.
It does irk me when Assange declares in interviews that no one has ever been harmed by one of its leaks and it's received as inalienable truth. The honest answer would be that they take every precaution but in the end they don't really know. His apparent infallibility in some eyes does seem to answer to a bit of a cult of personality.
For example, Jon Stephenson pointed out to me a non-obvious technical detail in one of the Afghan war diary communications that he felt would be very useful to insurgents who wanted to attack the NZ PRT. Which isn't to say the insurgents noticed it, or even read the document.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
It does irk me when Assange declares in interviews that no one has ever been harmed by one of its leaks and it's received as inalienable truth. The honest answer would be that they take every precaution but in the end they don't really know.
He has challenged WikiLeaks' detractors to bring proof to the contrary, which is not unreasonable if one looks at the war logs and the the staggering evidence of civilian killings and not investigated collateral damage that was allowed to happen and in some cases quite carefully documented. But that's not to say you don't have a point.
-
James, rather than banging on and on and on about what you'd like everyone not to be talking about, how about talking about what is of press-stopping importance that you have on your mind?
to see if anyone had expended any effort considering the implication of NZ's military being portrayed by a US pro-consul as dutiful soldiers of empire, unlike 'old europe' who seemed more reluctant to have their citizens killed for the sake of a free trade agreement or whatever.
This has been discussed so many times the regulars are bored of it. How about running the baton for a while?
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
There seems to be criticism of the leaks coming from Human Rights Groups as well.
That story is from August and relates to the Afghan releases. I believe the Pentagon itself has said there has been no evidence of anyone being physically harmed as a result of either that or the Iraq releases
-
From what I've read the current releases have been redacted twice - once by Wikileaks staff, and once by the newspapers.
And of course the USSD was offered the same opportunity but declined rather firmly, assuming I guess that any such reaction would imply cooperation in their release.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
That story is from August and relates to the Afghan releases.
True, but I was referring more to the way WikiLeaks responded to criticism. Their faith in the "it's true so must be released and all will be well"-mantra is a bit grating.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Following that my entreaty to at least discuss the one issue in all the cables that is more than a passing mention of NZ because it infers NZ troops are involving themselves in territory outside their region of responsibility, rouses 1 response dismissive of the cable’s import.
Sorry James, didn’t realise discussion required agreement with your analysis rather than discussion, you should have mentioned the entry requirements .
I just think you are rather more certain in the conclusions you’ve taken from that cable than warranted by its content. It seems to me that you’re reading that cable in a way that supports your existing viewpoint. And if support for existing viewpoints is all we’re reading the cables for I don’t see the point.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Really? Because I would have thought that the community involvement that comes into making sense of the information, giving it context – a task that is not devolved solely to professional journalists – is actually the opposite of dehumanising.
I’m conflicted. If the release and resulting discussions are part of a planned revolutionary media strategy on the part of wikileaks, then taking part in the contextualisation is simply a role in someone else’s pr strategy. As interesting as it might be.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
[deleted]
-
Apparently Hitler never raped anybody. (In fact, rumour has it ...)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
If the release and resulting discussions are part of a planned revolutionary media strategy on the part of wikileaks, then taking part in the contextualisation is simply a role in someone else’s pr strategy
The alternative being what, the status quo? I think WikiLeaks will never have its say. It will compete with other media, and its narrative will compete with theirs and those of our governments. I also think it would be a very cynical person that looked back on the Minton report and the war logs, if not this latest release, and say that it's stuff that should have remained secret.
-
The alternative being what, the status quo?
I don't know. Pepsi?
I'm not claiming my reaction is logical or defensible. And sure, I don't think there's a strong argument that any of these cables should have remained secret. I don't know, if these narratives will be competing, I guess that competition is more interesting, maybe more important, than differences in tactics between small units representing minor players in a war, or how corrupt some prince or other is.
And I suppose the difficulty of maintaining any focus on the content of the cables , even among those claiming to want to, might support the argument that maybe this dump is just too big, too wide for their content to receive the attention they deserve.
-
Clay Shirky says unfettered transparency may be bad for governnance in the long haul, but the way the US government is handling Wikileaks now is not on.
Citizens of a functioning democracy must be able to know what the state is saying and doing in our name, to engage in what Pierre Rosanvallon calls “counter-democracy”*, the democracy of citizens distrusting rather than legitimizing the actions of the state. Wikileaks plainly improves those abilities.
On the other hand, human systems can’t stand pure transparency. For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities. (If Aaron Bady’s analysis is correct, it is the damage and not the oversight that Wikileaks is designed to create.*)
And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that can’t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency.
...
I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When a government can’t get what it wants by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is to accept that it can’t get what it wants.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.