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.
This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1]. His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation.
The thing is that it worked. I never seen any Wikileaks story get so much attention in the news or "virally" on the Internet. Here in Sweden it was a top story on all the major newspapers websites and on the evening news, but put into context. The second part with the hellfire missile, where they didn't provide much commentary, in comparison got a lot less attention. More people than usual do seem to have watched the full material and read the related reports etc. to get the full story.
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.
It's unfortunate/scary that propagandizing is more effective than the "truth".
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.
> Don't be lazy, apply some critical thinking, listen to different sources.
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.
they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability
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
From various profiles of Assange scattered around the web, it seems clear that he intended Wikileaks to be a propaganda (he uses the word "activist") organization from the beginning. I suppose that implies they were simply biding their time waiting for a leak that would make a big enough propaganda splash (he uses the phrase "maximum political impact") before showing their hand.
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.
I don't get the difference? The important thing is that this kind of video is made publically available. Who cares what commentary the publisher chooses to make alongside of it and how is that different from what you get from any of the mainstream news sources (tv, newspapers), except that those actually feign neutrality (contrary to wikileaks).
Propaganda vs. propaganda is a recipe for disaster, that's not the sort of future of journalism that anyone should want. Reporting news from a given perspective or from a certain bias is fine, indeed normal, provided that you make people aware of it. Presenting propaganda as straight, unbiased news should be discouraged everywhere it is evident, history has proven that slope to be far too slippery. If wikileaks wishes to transform itself into some sort of rumor mill or propaganda site like druge report then it's free to do so provided that they make it abundantly clear that's what they're doing.
Wow...totally agree here. To me their mission is a lot less compelling as an activist organization. I liked them a lot better when they were just publishing information.
>Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van.
It is by no means irresponsible to call what happened "collateral murder".
> Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded.
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?
They're clearly incapable of doing real investigative journalism, so they should stick to what they're good at. Just release all the facts and the media and let the world do the rest.
Without the hype no one would have seen the video. Have you seen all the other documents at Wikileaks or the stuff at criptome? It's hard to penetrate the 24 hour news cycle, they did an admirable job. Even if you didn't like their editing, you have to admit they got you to watch and think about all the people we've killed in Iraq, very few people have managed to do that in the 7 years of this bloody war.
this is my update from above, as i realized that was paul graham....
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?
It makes me a little angry really. There are so many liars and people who spin things, political blogs, "opinion shows" on television. It's just outright lies. People are not telling the truth and I find it to be one of the most disgusting realizations I've had as an adult. It really takes a brain and critical thinking to understand the world because of the sheer number of liars broadcasting their lies through every means possible. This soldier came face to face with children hurt in war, and it's the most authentic and reasoned response I've read yet with regard to this incident. Wikileaks on the other hand just became another one of the liars. It's just despicable. I hope they're proud of their new status in life.
Comments
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.
This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1]. His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation.
1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/27071...
The thing is that it worked. I never seen any Wikileaks story get so much attention in the news or "virally" on the Internet. Here in Sweden it was a top story on all the major newspapers websites and on the evening news, but put into context. The second part with the hellfire missile, where they didn't provide much commentary, in comparison got a lot less attention. More people than usual do seem to have watched the full material and read the related reports etc. to get the full story.
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.
It's unfortunate/scary that propagandizing is more effective than the "truth".
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.
> Don't be lazy, apply some critical thinking, listen to different sources.
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.
they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability
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
This is appalling. It sounds like Wikileaks has been "positively blackmailed"[1] into accepting the video.
"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?
Bribed would probably be the closest “official” word.
From various profiles of Assange scattered around the web, it seems clear that he intended Wikileaks to be a propaganda (he uses the word "activist") organization from the beginning. I suppose that implies they were simply biding their time waiting for a leak that would make a big enough propaganda splash (he uses the phrase "maximum political impact") before showing their hand.
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.
I don't get the difference? The important thing is that this kind of video is made publically available. Who cares what commentary the publisher chooses to make alongside of it and how is that different from what you get from any of the mainstream news sources (tv, newspapers), except that those actually feign neutrality (contrary to wikileaks).
Propaganda vs. propaganda is a recipe for disaster, that's not the sort of future of journalism that anyone should want. Reporting news from a given perspective or from a certain bias is fine, indeed normal, provided that you make people aware of it. Presenting propaganda as straight, unbiased news should be discouraged everywhere it is evident, history has proven that slope to be far too slippery. If wikileaks wishes to transform itself into some sort of rumor mill or propaganda site like druge report then it's free to do so provided that they make it abundantly clear that's what they're doing.
Wow...totally agree here. To me their mission is a lot less compelling as an activist organization. I liked them a lot better when they were just publishing information.
>Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van.
It is by no means irresponsible to call what happened "collateral murder".
> Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded.
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.
how should they provide context?
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?
They're clearly incapable of doing real investigative journalism, so they should stick to what they're good at. Just release all the facts and the media and let the world do the rest.
Without the hype no one would have seen the video. Have you seen all the other documents at Wikileaks or the stuff at criptome? It's hard to penetrate the 24 hour news cycle, they did an admirable job. Even if you didn't like their editing, you have to admit they got you to watch and think about all the people we've killed in Iraq, very few people have managed to do that in the 7 years of this bloody war.
this is my update from above, as i realized that was paul graham....
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 think the problem is they didn't provide the truth and only the truth. There was editorial spin on the video release.
To stay afloat, the occasional stunt is necessary.
It makes me a little angry really. There are so many liars and people who spin things, political blogs, "opinion shows" on television. It's just outright lies. People are not telling the truth and I find it to be one of the most disgusting realizations I've had as an adult. It really takes a brain and critical thinking to understand the world because of the sheer number of liars broadcasting their lies through every means possible. This soldier came face to face with children hurt in war, and it's the most authentic and reasoned response I've read yet with regard to this incident. Wikileaks on the other hand just became another one of the liars. It's just despicable. I hope they're proud of their new status in life.
Maybe it was watching US soldiers gleefully murder civilians, or gloat over the children they shot?