Wikileaks.Follow

Even imaginary articles are tainted by the Evil Liberal Media, Joph. Don'tcha know?

I mean, if we take it in context, it's obvious that the imaginary article is a way for the Evil Liberal Media to downplay this leak, which only proves that it's very important.

I tried reading some of the documents posted on Wikileaks, but gave up as it was a bit jargonish and the navigation wasn't very user-friendly...

Seriously though, I really like Wikileaks. They do a great job of getting things out there. And these particular leaks just confirm the fact that most of the casualties are not reported in the media. That the death count is always much higher than the official estimates. That soldiers do shoot and kill unarmed civilians much more regularly than we're led to believe. It only reaffirms the daily horrors, the casual monstrosities of war.

It also makes a mockery of what the media usually report about wars. 91,000 files later, and the picture is slightly more realistic and accurate. And it doesn't make for great evening news...

Boy you liberal obamapologists are in full on damage control. We all know someone with the Obama administration leaked this information. 91k some odd documents and no mention of Obama's administrations handling of the war.

I'm not discounting the possibility that someone in DC leaked the documents. He attained them somewhere, after all.

Until this year's Daniel Ellsberg is identified, though, it's not something we can discuss intelligently.

Kael,

Do you really have to ask?

Oliver Stone told me that the media is dominated by jews, so I'll blame Rahm Emmanuel.

Confirmation bias, I guess. I've noticed quite a few articles about the Wikileaks site and its founder. Unless you mean about the leaker(s) in which case there's very little to say since no one knows who they are. So of course talking about the meat of the leaked documents is more compelling stuff than "Someone... somewhere... did something..."

Most of the so-called "speculation about how this might affect future funding and support for the war" in news articles can be summed up with "Not much if at all".

So, Gbaji. You're against freedom of information for the masses because they're not smart enough to figure out reality for themselves without it being explained to them? Is that what you're saying?

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Again, aside from complete wild guesses there's no story here until there's something to build a story out of.


I appreciate that you're still all sorts of anally-torn about that and I'm sure that plays a huge role in your little fit now but you seriously can't see any difference in the stories? Perhaps the fact that there was a clear trail of who talked to who in interviews and a much more select pool of 'suspects' than "Person or peoples over the course of days/weeks/years during unknown periods of time..."


I suppose when your only tool is a hammer every problem is a nail.

Tee-hee!

There was no story in the Plame leak until a member of the media created it by suggesting that her identity might have been classified and there might have been a leak, and that someone at the White House might have done this to attack Wilson for his op ed. So yeah. It does kind of matter how the media responds to this sort of thing.



Yes. In one, it was beneficial to liberals to pursue any leak which may have occurred, no matter how small, and suggest who might have caused the leak, well in advance of the facts (in opposition to them in fact!). It was also beneficial to liberals to downplay the actual conditions surrounding the leak itself (the details of Wilson's trip and the glaring omissions in his op eds about the trip). In the other one, it's beneficial for liberals to focus directly on the content of the leak and the context surrounding it (failure in the war in Afghanistan, mistakes made by military personnel, civilian casualties, etc). It is also beneficial to liberals to *not* look to hard at or for the source of the leak, since it's almost certainly going to be a liberal sympathetic person, and it would just distract from what they want the story to be about.

Yeah. I see the differences quite clearly.



There was no such thing Joph. We have no more information about the source of the leak in this case than we did in that one. The media pushed the Plame issue from day one. They made that the story. They forced an investigation. Perception created reality. They created the perception of a scenario in which the White House leaked Plames identity to attack/punish Wilson for his op eds, and that became the reality for about 2-3 years.

The media could have ignored that aspect of the story and focused instead on investigating the validity of Wilson's account of his trip to Nigeria. But they didn't. Gee. I wonder why?


This is a massively bigger leak Joph. The need to find who leaked this information and plug the hole is orders of magnitude more important. Yet the story is going in the other direction. You don't see that it's going another direction *because* the majority of the media choose to go in that direction? Are you really that naive? Or just willing to lie when it helps cover up something inconvenient?

Huh. As it turns out, they're starting to investigate Bradley Manning, who is under investigation for prior leaks, in this case.

I learned this.... from the media!!

Edited, Jul 27th 2010 8:29pm by Jophiel