Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Matthew Littlewood,
As RB said, there are very legitimate criticisms to take up with the NYT. But that doesn’t negate the incredible amount of great investigative work and commentary they have done and continue to do, even as the paper seems to be in dire financial straits.
I need to drop this, I think, but let me point out one thing.
Since the Committee to Protect Journalists started counting in 1922, 850 journalists have been killed in the course of their work. Many more have been beaten, intimidated, threatened and forced to flee.
What the US government is trying to pull on Assange is dreadful. But Don, next time you're tempted to sling off at journalists, perhaps consider all those people. And they didn't have wealthy friends and a global fanbase.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Don Christie,
I think the NYT has behaved in a reprehensible and self serving manner. The way they have attempted to undermine the freedom of speech defence for WL (“they don’t count as journalists”) is about as shoddy as it comes.
Okay, here is the actual quote, from Keller's essay:
But while I do not regard Assange as a partner, and I would hesitate to describe what WikiLeaks does as journalism, it is chilling to contemplate the possible government prosecution of WikiLeaks for making secrets public, let alone the passage of new laws to punish the dissemination of classified information, as some have advocated.
Is that really an "attempt to undermine the free-speech defence for Assange"? Or a view on an issue on which there is a wide range of views? Rusbridger noted that sometimes Assange presented as a journalist, sometimes as a source, sometimes as a publisher.
Then there's this discussion, reported by HuffPo::
"If, God forbid, ever this came to court, I'd...stand completely shoulder to shoulder with him," Rusbridger said. "I have great admiration for him [and] respect for a lot of the stuff that he's done."
Keller said that he was "not a lawyer," but that it would be "hard to conceive of a prosecution of Julian Assange that wouldn't stretch the law to be applicable to us. Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange...journalists should feel a sense of alarm at any legal action that intends to punish Assange for doing what journalists do."
I find it hard to read that as throwing Assange to the wolves. Given the petulance they've had to endure, both editors have, I think, taken a pretty measured approach in theircomments.
HuffPost and the Internet has done more to bring these stories to Americans than the NYT
HuffPo? A site which doesn't pay most of its writers and has done precisely zero original reporting on this story? Seriously?
Read the book if you want to find out how much value working journalists added to this project.
For god's sake, Don, the biggest risk faced by HuffoPo bloggers is probably RSI. The NYT has field reporters who get kidnapped, assaulted and occasionally killed in the line of work. There are sound and reasoned criticisms of that can be made of the Times' approach, but this sort of glib MSM-hatred doesn't really wash.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
It was almost – ALMOST – as good as the Flaming Lips at the BDO (the standard by which all splendidly wonderful lunatic genius shows should be measured).
My tweetstream went mad last night with Sufjan love.
-
Hard News: "Orderly transition" in #Egypt, in reply to Christiaan,
Interesting;
Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere
Yep, we've been discussing that for a page or two ;-)
But it's so good it's worth linking to again. Matter o' fact, I might tweet it again now ...
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Laurence Millar,
It is clear that JA has a different view of the world, ethics and morals from most people, and also he is on record as being inconsistent.
However, more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in a war of dubious legality; and we would probably not know that without Wikileaks.
We had a fair idea – it seems that the official count matched quite closely with the unofficial tally of Iraq Body Count – but no, we would not have known.
What jumped out for me was that we constantly heard the “we don’t do body counts” from US command in Iraq – whereas, in fact, they did, right from the start.
It is not helpful to characterise the population into good guys and bad guys (the real world is a lot more complex than a hollyood western).
If you you meant me here, no, I don’t consider Assange a “bad guy” but I do lose patience with the way some people are reluctant to acknowledge some fairly significant flaws in his personality.
And these do have a significant impact on the operation. He seems to have burned off a series of colleagues, from Daniel Domscheit-Berg on down.
The New York Times’ role has been important in bringing these stories to Americans – but its participation in the Cablegate release was possible solely because The Guardian pretty much told Assange to get stuffed and provided the material direct to the NYT itself, after Assange became enraged by an insufficiently reverent profile of him that ran in the Times and insisted the Americans be cut out. (He had previously demanded that the Times undertake to publish no further criticism of him personally as a condition of getting this vital public-interest material.)
And now, of course, The Guardian is the enemy – witness the ridiculous (and fortunately empty) threat to sue last week. (He also threatened to sue the Guardian for the loss Wikileaks “financial assets” during the dispute over theNYT’s participation.)
It is entirely reasonable to consider whether this sort of caprice is desirable in a man in such a powerful position, especially one who is the subject of a personality cult so fervid that some of its members feel justified in taking vigilante action against rape complainants.
-
This just on the Twitters from David Leigh:
#Assange is NOT sueing the #Guardian for libel. His lawyer Mark Stephens confirms apparently. I'm relieved to find Julian is not a hypocrite.
-
It pays to consider that some of any generation’s most creative minds are often barely functioning human beings
The conundrum is that most of the barely functioning human beings of any generation are not it’s most creative minds. The correlation between not functioning and being artistic is not really that strong.
I think "barely functioning human beings" is overstating the case. But I've known artists who are bugger-all good for anything else.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
You used the phrase “bad guys”. Twice.
What was I supposed to say? "Enemy combatants"? ;-)
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Don Christie,
Interesting interview with Peter Sunde (Swedish Pirate Bay Party) over on the Webstock blog ... (the more artistically minded can scroll through to the Amanda.Fucking.Palmer interview)
All being well, I'm interviewing the pair of them together on the Media7 Webstock special.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Neil Graham,
In IT terms that’s known as security by obscurity, and is considered poor practice. While the real world cannot be reduced to a cryptographic style problem. I think there is merit in the notion that you plan your actions as if your adversaries can see everything you are doing and planning.
I think it’s a very perilous comparison.
In the case of your terrorism tactical response plan, you have to prioritise resources somewhere, you have to use some agency, you have to use some technology.
You’ve hopefully made the best choices, but you’ve made choices – and if the bad guys know your choices, they have a significant advantage. Because you sure as hell don’t know theirs.
IT security, by contrast, enjoys “best choices” that work even when the bad guys know them – and probably don’t even pose an additional cost.