I dunno. And then you fight disinformation with information. And in all likelyhood, someone working there decided that the State Department was going to get some egg on their face anyways, and attempting to cover it up with disinformation would just add some bacon and mushrooms and turn it into an omelet of bad PR. This is the least 'dumb looking' way to attempt to suppress the information.
Or it's entirely possible that they really believe (or know) that the information will cause harm and risk, and are doing their best to prevent it. My understanding is that the State Department is usually staffed with people who want to do the right thing. In fact, most of the US government is.
Seriously, based on how often people cry foul whenever it appears that some government is trying to spin/manipulate information, it's probably a better idea that they didn't try that.
And the fact that you advise that points out to something. Your advice is probably the correct course of action for any body out to maximize it's self interest. But people generally don't like that in their governments. Hell, they don't even like when their governments are cold, calculating and cynical.
I do not see how they are trying to do the right thing when in this case the right thing would have been to state which specific information puts lives at risk.
The fact that they did not state so simply adds credibility to wikileaks case, that these are fanciful allegations without any evidence whatever.
Comments
I dunno. And then you fight disinformation with information. And in all likelyhood, someone working there decided that the State Department was going to get some egg on their face anyways, and attempting to cover it up with disinformation would just add some bacon and mushrooms and turn it into an omelet of bad PR. This is the least 'dumb looking' way to attempt to suppress the information.
Or it's entirely possible that they really believe (or know) that the information will cause harm and risk, and are doing their best to prevent it. My understanding is that the State Department is usually staffed with people who want to do the right thing. In fact, most of the US government is.
Seriously, based on how often people cry foul whenever it appears that some government is trying to spin/manipulate information, it's probably a better idea that they didn't try that.
And the fact that you advise that points out to something. Your advice is probably the correct course of action for any body out to maximize it's self interest. But people generally don't like that in their governments. Hell, they don't even like when their governments are cold, calculating and cynical.
I do not see how they are trying to do the right thing when in this case the right thing would have been to state which specific information puts lives at risk.
The fact that they did not state so simply adds credibility to wikileaks case, that these are fanciful allegations without any evidence whatever.