Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

Tis bad because it will tighten up things to the point that should anything IMPORTANT need to be leaked there will be no way.

Blind leaks are like a broken pipe -- just wastes water.

Originally Posted by Claude

Well the right accuse them of being left-leaning and the left accuse them of being right-leaning. Christian groups accuse them of being anti-christian and muslim groups accuse them of being anti-muslim, etc, etc.

On that basis I think they must be doing something right.

Agree on the Economist. Good source of information and news.

Claude

It was there own internal review that found they were anti-Christian and Left leaning. I watch both Fox News and the BBC on our pay TV provider in Australia and I think they are as bad as each other on the opposite sides of the spectrum.

The BBC is definitely not what it was. It's probably better than most. During the Thatcher years it became known as Buggers Broadcasting Communism.

Originally Posted by JimR

Paul, as for BBC, I have found it remarkably fair handed. The "Leaked memo" you mention, after investigation, turns out to be a fabricated story by the Daily Mail (a tabloid newspaper) quoted at length by several Christian sites. The conversation was live streamed on the web and the discussions were balanced--the websties in question obviously had an agenda, and took no concern over the fact that the line "

Not true.

BBC must become more impartial

The Editors: Bias at the BBC?

Does the BBC have a bias problem?

Confessions of a BBC Liberal

Now, I've given several BBC sources that cite issues of impartiality as recently as 2007. Plus, given a Times Online article. This isn't something that was fabricated by a "tabloid". This was an impartiality summit in which views of senior members of the BBC admitted to bias. The BBC reporting of the incident differs in interpretation of what it all meant, but it doesn't dispute that those sentiments were raised from within.

Originally Posted by JimR

Al Jazeera is biased, but their bias is clear and the analysis is coming from sources that are not covered in typical western media sources.

My problem with FOX, apart from the bias, is that they report things that are factually false; provably and definitely contrary to fact, and they do so in support of their agenda.

We both know that isn't a problem confined to Fox News, though, right? In a recent Pew Research survey, only 29% of Americans considered their News sources accurate. However, because of their heavily right-wing commentary, they get bashed more than others. We could both find innumerable examples of factual inaccuracy in other news organizations. And it's not that hard...

Originally Posted by JimR

I TRIED to find quotes from members of this administration saying that this leak would lead to real threats--I found quotes form Senator John Kerry, who has not read the cables. I found quotes from Former President Clinton ("I wouldn't be surprised if people lost their lives.") and I found quotes from Sarah Palin. Nothing of what I found was in any way indicative of a real threat to human life caused by these cables.

What I have seen is outrage over the insult to dignity and embarrassment caused by the security failure. I've seen no reason to believe anything other than that there are a lot of embarrassing revelations, but no secret security information.

How about something from the White House?

Originally Posted by White House Press Secretary

We anticipate the release of what are claimed to be several hundred thousand classified State department cables on Sunday night that detail private diplomatic discussions with foreign governments. By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions. Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world. To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies. President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.

Here's another one from National Security Advisor General James Jones refuting Wikileaks' claim that they contacted the administration prior to the release of the documents Whitehouse.gov

I like facts too, and I make a habit of reading statements from the White House. This isn't coming from "drum thumping rabble rousing" ill-informed buffoons (yes I recognize some may consider that debatable); it's the current administration. Like I referenced earlier, there are hundreds of thousands of these cables out there. You nor I have had a chance to read through them all. This is just the beginning of what's likely to be released.

Paul

Looking at the references you provided re the BBC what really strikes me is that many of the issues referred to were either whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail (who believe that Fox News is a bit left wing and liberal) or were pretty specific instances that the BBC themselves were highlighting. One of the reasons this happens is that there is a national obsession with the BBC being impartial and every time they may possibly veer from that there is a great hue and cry with internal reviews etc. Needless to say individual journalists have there own leanings one way or another but the organisation as a whole is neutral and is more than prepared to beat themselves up and publicly humiliate themselves whenever there is a suggestion that they may not be perceived as such.

Claude

This is a fascinating development in human history never before seen on such a global scale. Wikileaks and the global sharing of information by individuals via the internet are the very reasons that people such as senator Jay Rockefeller wonder out loud whether the world would be better/safer etc. if the internet were shut down.

I think the concept of Wikileaks is a good thing. However, I wonder if again, the concept of being an international vehicle for blowing the whistle on governments, corporations, etc that pose serious harm, danger, exploit, commit crimes against humanity, etc has been veering or may continue to veer off course.

Do the majority or even any of the leaked classified cables bring to light such grave injustices? If not, then it seems to me they're incompatible with what I understand wikileaks to be designed for.

I think those that may believe that ALL information related to governmental foreign affairs should be completely transparent and open do not understand the concept of international interaction and coexistence among sovereign nations nor would such a person, in my opinion, understand the reality of human nature.

Conversely I think those that may believe that NO governmental information of illegal activity should be leaked no matter how heinous or criminal it may be are sadly misguided. And to such people, I would ask: What would be the appropriate means to blow the whistle on any government that was committing crimes against humanity, genocide, or even torture if such torture would be illegal according to international or national law? Lenin's Cheka (the first Soviet security organization) skinned people alive and twisted the heads of people around and around until their head literally separated from their body.

If any government were using similar techniques of torture, for example, what would the reason or reasons be for someone within that government to refrain from blowing the whistle?

Chris L

Claude,

That's an admirable stance for the BBC to take, if it is practiced. However, I only chose those sources because they clearly refuted the notion that there was no internal discussion of bias, and that such talk wasn't "fabricated" by a tabloid. I also refrained from using Daily Mail intentionally. I could have linked others (because I found many), but it would not have added to the point.

Chris L,

That's a great post, and I feel very similarly to you. Thanks!

Paul

There is quite an interesting relationship between the BBC and the rest of the media in the UK. On the one hand most do believe the BBC does a good job (across the whole range of its output) but on the other they resent the fact that the BBC, which is publicly funded, is competing with them for viewers / listeners / browsers, if not directly for advertising revenues.

Claude

If you look at history nothing has changed except the greatly increased dissemination of information via cable tv with the 24 hour news cycle and of course the internet. I have a coffee table sized book of all of the photos taken of Abraham Lincoln.

It has a chapter illustrating political cartoons of the period. He is depicted in some of them as an ape and many of them are over the top in their anti Lincoln bias. I recall that when Andrew Jackson was running for president some newspapers referred to his wife as a whore ...... using that word.

As Finley Peter Dunne famously said,"Politcs ain't bean bags", and the play can get rough. Not to excuse it, just sayin'.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Not true.

BBC must become more impartial

The Editors: Bias at the BBC?

Does the BBC have a bias problem?

Confessions of a BBC Liberal

Now, I've given several BBC sources that cite issues of impartiality as recently as 2007. Plus, given a Times Online article. This isn't something that was fabricated by a "tabloid". This was an impartiality summit in which views of senior members of the BBC admitted to bias. The BBC reporting of the incident differs in interpretation of what it all meant, but it doesn't dispute that those sentiments were raised from within.

Paul, each of those documents linked supports the fact that the conversation was had, but the idea that anyone "admitted" to bias is directly refuted by two of those documents. The fact that the BBC is publicly holding discussions about their attempts to maintain impartiality is, indeed, a strong sign in their favor, if you ask me.

In addition, the final document refers to a liberal bias FORTY YEARS AGO, in the entertainment arm of BBC, discussing comedies and dramas.

Not the news.

Indeed, his reference to the 2007 poll only says "Indeed the BBC’s own 2007 report on impartiality found that 57% of poll respondents said that “broadcasters often fail to reflect the views of people like me”. "...No mention of liberal or conservative, or indeed any political bent. "The views of people like me" could mean "the views of people with children."

Originally Posted by richmondesi

We both know that isn't a problem confined to Fox News, though, right? In a recent Pew Research survey, only 29% of Americans considered their News sources accurate. However, because of their heavily right-wing commentary, they get bashed more than others. We could both find innumerable examples of factual inaccuracy in other news organizations. And it's not that hard...

I said LIES, not mistakes. Not inaccuracies. Deliberate misleading in order to control public opinion.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

How about something from the White House?

I admit I hadn't seen that. Thank you.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Here's another one from National Security Advisor General James Jones refuting Wikileaks' claim that they contacted the administration prior to the release of the documents Whitehouse.gov

Paul, did you read that? I really think you should.

It's talking about the release of the "Afghan war diaries", last summer. Several months later, and...what happened again?

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I like facts too, and I make a habit of reading statements from the White House. This isn't coming from "drum thumping rabble rousing" ill-informed buffoons (yes I recognize some may consider that debatable); it's the current administration. Like I referenced earlier, there are hundreds of thousands of these cables out there. You nor I have had a chance to read through them all. This is just the beginning of what's likely to be released.

Indeed. Hundreds of thousands, dribbled out over weeks and months, and the US government, the NY Times and others already know the full extent. If anyone's lives are in danger because of the information, either they're already dead, or there is enough warning to take action to protect them.