UK Independent: Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority

[seafan]

John Kampfner isn't backing down.


Monday, 29 November 2010

.....

The mainstream media in the UK are serial offenders. Newspapers that have no compunction about invasions of privacy or about shrill comment devote precious little time or energy to challenging authority through rigorous investigative journalism. Most political "scoops" are merely stories planted by politicians on pliant lobby hacks. Editors and senior journalists are habitually invited into MI5 and MI6 for briefings. These are affable occasions, often over lunch. There is no harm in that. What tends to happen, however, is that journalists are tickled pink by the attention. They love being invited to the "D-notice" committee to discuss how they can all behave "responsibly". It makes them feel important. Many suspend their critical faculties as a result.

Far from being "feral beasts", to use Tony Blair's phrase, the British media are overly respectful of authority. Newspapers and broadcasters tend to be suspicious of those who do not play the game, people like Mr Assange who are awkward outsiders. Some editors are quite happy to help the authorities in their denunciations of him, partly out of revenge for not being in his inner circle.

All governments have a legitimate right to protect national security. This should be a specific, and closely scrutinised, area of policy. Most of our secrecy rules are designed merely to protect politicians and officials from embarrassment. Documents are habitually over-classified for this purpose. The previous government made desperate attempts to stop legal evidence of its collusion in torture from reaching the public. Ministers argued, speciously, that this was to protect the "special intelligence relationship" with Washington. It will be intriguing to see how much information is allowed to be published when Sir Peter Gibson begins his official inquiry. Precedent suggests little grounds for optimism.

As with all free speech, as with Wikileaks, context is key. It is vital to know when governments collude in torture or other illegal acts. It is important to know when they say one thing in private (about a particular world leader) and do quite another in public. It is perturbing to know that aid agencies may have been used by the military, particularly in Afghanistan, to help Nato forces to "win hearts and minds".

These questions, and more, are vital for the democratic debate. The answers inevitably cause embarrassment. That too is essential for a healthy civil society. Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.

.....

Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.

Guardian: The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment

Simon Jenkins
28 November 2010

.....

Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be "world policeman" – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and "representations" were invited in return. These were considered. Details of "redactions" were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard.

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

.....

Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

.....

Nancy Youseff of McClatchy directly confronts the notion that these latest docs have endangered American officials: “American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people’s lives in danger. But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone’s death.”

Hat Tip on this to Greg Mitchell at The Nation who is doing a yeoman’s job of continuously blogging the rolling Wikileaks saga.

Greg also points us to a biting tweet by Glenn Greenwald: ” that old 1-2 punch is coming within minutes: (1) Wikieaks endangered everything!!! ; (2) there’s nothing new here; move on.”

One interesting sidebar to this latest information earthquake is that this time around, Wikileaks did NOT include The New York Times among the four media outlets to whom it gave early access to the leaks. Payback for some rather ungrateful treatment of Wikileaks by the NYT during its last release of secret documents. The Times, in its extensive coverage, sort of shades this fact by saying it received the docs from an “intermediary” — in this case, The Guardian.

-----LINK

Marc Cooper continues at WhyNotWikiLeaks:

November 28, 2010

.....

Are they dangerous? So far, it seems not. But the question here seems the wrong one. Nothing, and I repeat nothing, is more sinister, more dangerous and ultimately more deadly than government secrecy. We accept it as a fact of life, I am afraid. And most people probably think it is proper for governments to work in the shadows. Then again, most people think there’s nothing wrong with stockpiling 18,000 nuclear weapons ( a sort of shared collective insanity).

Transparency in government, let alone in international relations, is a concept almost foreign to us. But it is not dangerous. Not unless there are a lot of people lying to us about life and death matters that get thrown into the light of day.



As Wikileaks writes on its web site, which was hacked and attacked during most of Sunday:

“The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.”

“This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes”

“Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington – the country’s first President – could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today’s document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the US Government has been warning governments — even the most corrupt — around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.”



I don’t know about you… but I want to read more, not less, about this. Indeed, an editorial in Monday’s Guardian reads in part: “ Before US government officials point accusing fingers at others, they might first have the humility to reflect on their own role in scattering ‘secrets’ around a global intranet.”

If we had less government lying and secrecy during the run up to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, there might be a few more million living and breathing. I think that sort of benefit outweighs the quirks of Wikileaks.

This is why WikiLeaks is such a threat to politicians and their compliant media patrons. WikiLeaks shines a bright and unforgiving light into the dark corners of government secrecy.
And the politicians and their self-serving media paramours will be exposed for the cesspool of criminals, rogues and hedonistic nitwits that they are.


Now, for the first time, the people have access to the truth in its raw, unadulterated state.


For the powerful, truth is terrorism.

[EFerrari]

1. K&R

[Goldstein1984]

2. I don't know many critically thinking people who still rely on the

corporate media for anything but a quick summary of headlines. They all go to online sources of news for more truth, depth and critical analysis of events.

I turned on CNN yesterday at the top of the hour to check "breaking stories." With all the stuff going on in the world, they opened with a segment about shopping on "Cyber Monday." Of course, the segment was riddled with product placement.

[Catherina]

3. Highly recommended. n/t

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[DeSwiss]

5. K&R n/t

[flyarm]

6. now that is an understatment! eom

[pacalo]

7. We've been onto this for years, thanks to the transparency of the boy king's

sudden rise to the national scene. That was the biggest red flag this country could have gotten that not all is what it seems to be. It's comforting & satisfying to see the "corruption & mendacity", in *their* own words, exposed for everyone to see.

And I commend Assange for taking every precaution to see that no top secret information would be exposed. We deserve to know what this country does in our name & with our tax money.

[Celtic Raven]

8. K&R!

Our founders are no doubt spinning in their graves at the way our newspapers kowtow to anyone in authority. At the least indication that someone in gov't is displeased they are bowing and scraping.

:puke:

[TheBigotBasher]

9. K&R

it is also quite telling that the response of the Rethugs to this has varied from "exterminating wikileaks" to declaring war on Europe.

[olegramps]

10. What struck me was that the UK suffers from the same disease that has invaded American journalism.

As far as I am concerned I believe that the lack of objectivity and independence of the Fourth Estate to keep the citizens properly informed is the root cause of our decadence and will eventually lead to the nation's total collapse into a Plutocracy. The media has become a whole owned propaganda machine of the wealthy class. The first thing that every dictator realizes is that their greatest threat is a free press and it is imperative that they have absolute control of information sources. The plutocrats have followed the same program. The Tea Party movement is a prime example of how the masses can be manipulated without any revelation by a so-called free press. The internet is the only resource for free exchange of information and rest assured that it will be their next target. The Plutocrats will use their bought and payed for bootlickers in congress to slowly strangle it with regulations.

[florida08]

11. K&R

From Simon Jenkins..Guardian:

America's foreign policy is revealed as a slave to right wing drift, terrified of a bomb exploding abroad or of a pro-Israeli congressman at home

Truth to power indeed. They've unleashed the dogs on Wikileaks. Surprised they haven't hacked the website. Now they're want him declared a terrorist? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I look for net neutrality to come under fire very soon. The information war is the first line of defense in an fascist plutocracy.

Thanks for all the hard work in getting out this vital information. You and Sabrina are two of my favorites. I so appreciate you both.

[seafan]

15. Thank you, florida08.

While people are starving for the truth in our world, our media dish up either "Catapulting the Propaganda" or "Dancing With the Stars".


Our media lick the boots of the powerful. They all deserve harsh exposure.


Peace, florida08, and never give up this fight.

[bertman]

12. Proud to be REC #45. nt

[midnight]

13. yes.... I want to read more too...

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Thanks for the excellent compilation!

Interesting, however, that it is primarily UK newspapers that are being castigated. Compared to our own, they are excellent. But then, that's not saying much given how godawful and slavish our own generally are. I'm surprised that the NYT actually found the gumption to publish together with the others.

[sabrina 1]

16. Excellent compilation, Seafan.

'For the powerful, truth is terrorism'. It definitely is. You can see how desperate they are. Threatening to go after Assange, hoping that by pointing a finger 'over there' we the people, will overlook the mountain of evidence against them, from interfering in the prosecution of OUR war criminals, to using our State Department for espionage, another crime added to all the rest.

And our media shamefully refuses to analyze this information and report it accurately even thought they know we now don't need them anymore.

K&R ~ it's going to be a fight to combat the smears and lies against Wikileaks, but thanks for doing your part. The more information there is, the safer Assange will be.