Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to HORansome,
The example I keep coming back to in my thesis (with regards to secrecy as suspicious rather than sinister) is the Surprise Party
You never said you were throwing me a surprise party! Oh, wait.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Don Christie,
It’s pretty frustrating, and certainly one reason I am sure WL wanted more out than less. Journalists have their own, often narrow, agendas which are not generally those of the public interest.
They also have the knowledge and contacts to know what the story is. I was surprised by how much of the heavy lifting on preparing the stories – like, nearly all of it – was actually done by the Guardian team.
They contain quite useful information, not least for NZers and NZ businesses who might fall foul of this and similar trade agreements with the USA.
That is problematic, and from my understanding the failure of some stories to appear is indeed a failure at certain news organisations.
I’m reasonably sure that Nicky Hager would be open to an approach on ACTA. Has anyone tried?
-
The review was long enough already, but I should note I’m not so impressed by the basis of Davies’ withdrawal from working with Assange: both sides believed they had a regarding exclusivity, and Davies was sufficiently incensed when their respective understandings proved to be quite different that he refused to continue dealing with Assange. A journalistic tiff, mostly, and one being spun by both sides since.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Don Christie,
We have no idea whether quotes like the one above are taken out of context or quite what the scenario was.
I'd have thought it was about as clear as it could be, even from the excerpt. The two Guardian journalists raised the issue of redaction over dinner with Assange, in the presence of two journalists from Der Spiegel. Four people seem to have heard his response.
For purposes of clarity, this is the paragraph that precedes the excerpt in my review:
The knottiest problem surrounded redactions. The papers planned only to publish a relatively small number of significant stories, and with them the text of the handful of relevant logs. WikiLeaks, on the other hand, intended simultaneously to unleash the lot. But many of the entries, particularly the “threat reports” derived from intelligence, mentioned the names of informants or those who had collaborated with US troops. In the vicious internecine politics of Afghanistan, such people could be in danger. Declan Walsh was among the first to realise this:
The book does go on to point out that Assange "eventually revisited his view, despite the technical difficulties it posed for WikiLeaks. And by the time the US state department cables were published, five months later, Assange had entirely embraced the logic of redaction, with his role almost that of a mainstream publisher."
They certainly contradict many of the public statements made by Wikileaks.
I think it's evident by now that Assange makes statements that contradict his previous positions. You only need to follow Wikileaks on Twitter to see that.
I have found the extracts of this book running in the Guardian badly written and uninformative, with little insight or analysis to redeem them.
With you there. They're generally the worst parts of the book.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Goody! Look forward to that, and in the meantime thank for the review – it does put the focus on Assange’s personality under a rather more useful light than was perhaps the case at the time of the cable releases.
Thanks. As I said, the book did also impress upon me what he has achieved and where he comes from.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
These seem to have dried up. I guess Hager is either sitting on them for the election campaign or writing another book.
Turns out there's quite a story there. We'll cover it in the show.
-
Hard News: "Orderly transition" in #Egypt, in reply to Christiaan,
Surprise surprise. The U.S. are backing their man of torture. Did you know Suleiman means "man of peace"? The irony.
They can't negotiate with an empty space, Christiaan. The statement from Suleiman's office seems markedly better than anything that seemed likely late last week. Which isn't to say the protesters shouldn't hold out for more.
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Sacha,
Perhaps like this from Steeve Coogan against Top Gear's lazy racism?
That's some a-grade diss right there.
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Totally off topic, proberbly ;-)
If not soberly ;-)
-
Some videos from Monday, of course:
Children’s Hour scaring the young folk.
Holy Fuck using the synchroniser:
Beach House doing ‘Norway’:
And Foals:
My criticism of the scheduling would be that it wore me down a bit in the middle. Wish I’d seen the finishing acts now …