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.
Comments
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.