In addition, there is a lot of "context" in the edited out footage of even Wikileaks "full" version (timestamps):
0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.
0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”
1:05 “One of them has a weapon.”
1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).
3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”
4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”
4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.
4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”
5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).
5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”
6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”
6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”
6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”
Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, ___Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did___.
Although, the article goes on to argue whether they still can call it the "full video", but that's just a debate of semantics then. I am at the moment unsure whether the timestamped captions were a part of the original source video or not. It would be disappointing if it were, just as disappointing was WikiLeaks' decision to go by the 'collateral damage' domain, still however -- they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material.
"they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material."
My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint.
Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here -- the Gawker article you linked to makes it clear that Wikileaks did not cut/edit the video.
Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
Wikileaks presented the video as "full & uncut" and Gawker called them out on it. Notice they didn't mention the 30min was removed when promoting that video..they had to be called out on it.
Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.
Comments
Wikileaks presented their "full" version as "uncut" but is actually missing 30 minutes -- Gawker covered this in some detail:
http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-...
In addition, there is a lot of "context" in the edited out footage of even Wikileaks "full" version (timestamps):
0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.
0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”
1:05 “One of them has a weapon.”
1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).
3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”
4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”
4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.
4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”
5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).
5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”
6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”
6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”
6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”
Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, ___Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did___.
Although, the article goes on to argue whether they still can call it the "full video", but that's just a debate of semantics then. I am at the moment unsure whether the timestamped captions were a part of the original source video or not. It would be disappointing if it were, just as disappointing was WikiLeaks' decision to go by the 'collateral damage' domain, still however -- they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material.
"they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material."
My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint.
Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here -- the Gawker article you linked to makes it clear that Wikileaks did not cut/edit the video.
Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
Wikileaks presented the video as "full & uncut" and Gawker called them out on it. Notice they didn't mention the 30min was removed when promoting that video..they had to be called out on it.
Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.