|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Nov 29, 2010 23:25:05 GMT -5
So why is such leaks good? The government was called out. Now they HAVE to be honest, or face loosing legitimacy. At least that's my take on it. Not sure if total, unconditional honesty is a good thing. Especially in diplomatics. |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 29, 2010 23:36:47 GMT -5
How so?
|
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Nov 30, 2010 0:07:53 GMT -5
I don't even know how to answer you here. Don't you think it would be better for our foreign relationships, if things like this: ....are kept under the rug? |
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Nov 30, 2010 0:08:19 GMT -5
If one can dig a hole so deep in one field, what's to stop one from digging into the field of military secrets? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 30, 2010 0:15:56 GMT -5
Most journalists do not obey their codes of ethics (eg: Judy Miller). Wikileaks always does. That's the difference. What code of ethics, make the people they don't like look bad? You know how they edited the video of the one Journalist getting killed with comments like "this is a camera" or "people trying to help". Wikileaks does no good what so ever. It does not make governments more open it just makes them more adapt at hiding secrets. The most vital ethical restraints for journalists are to be honest, truthful and sceptical and to verify to the best of your abillity before publishing. Wikileaks does that; the New York Times/Washington Post/CNN usually do not. For instance, it would be dishonest (and therefore unethical) for a journalist to imply a lack of honesty in Wikileaks' labelling of certain objects in their Collateral Murder video. The labelling was purely designed to increase ease of viewing. It would also be dishonest to imply that wikileaks showed an edited version of the video, since the shorter version was accompanied by a full, unedited video (that was less convenient for some viewers). Wikileaks aren't Andrew Breitbart. wikileaks is not accountable to anyone. Wikileaks is accountable to the law, and it's accountable to public opinion. That's a good deal more accountable than the average institution (corporations, the government, ect). Furthermore, despite that unusual level of accountability, it's almost powerless. It has even less power than the average Joe Blogger, because of it's high-profile nature. It owns no weapons, it has no cash. It has no army of journalists. All it has is a blog and credibility. Clearly, the real issue is that vast spying agencies set up by the government at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars are completely unaccountable even, in many cases, to that government. Particularly goven that that network does actually kill real people as opposed to wikipedia's imaginary ones. |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 30, 2010 0:23:09 GMT -5
So world leaders are critiqued. Big deal. It would be a sad world we live in when the law makers of every country in the world got pout-eyed if you were told you were indecisive as a leader. Sure, in the short term things might be bad, but in the long term, especially during a regime change, would this really matter?
Although it has been stated before that wikileaks is using its own judgment to take these links seriously, is a nation who's GDP is less than Walmart really going to use the schematics of a $1.2 billion jet? What about Iran and N.Korea? What about them? They have nuclear weapons and powers within their region that DO have military technology. Besides, what wikileaks probably would post on the military side of documents would most likely be shoot-to-kill orders and small invasions on foreign territory, which, in my opinion, others certainly have the right to know.
Look, secrecy in government alienates its people from the institution. We live in an age where global peace is steadily becoming a less impossible goal, and if we want that as much as we say we do, nations should be honest with each-other about their means and motives. If citizens and governments can't trust one another, how will any progress towards a better future be made?
Also, if we want a rather GOOD idea of why governments shouldn't keep secrets, we have solid evidence happening RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 30, 2010 0:37:05 GMT -5
Most journalists do not obey their codes of ethics (eg: Judy Miller). Wikileaks always does. That's the difference. The reason we hear about the Judy Millers of the world is precisely because they are the EXCEPTION. Judy Miller was only exceptional in that she was 'on point'. The rest of the newspaper- and every other newspaper, and TV and radio- was behind her, if not actually spouting similar anonymous administration-leaked lies. TV channels were actually paid to have ex-generals come on and be paid a fee for spouting Bush's false claims. And that failure to do their job has continued to the present, in all media and in nearly all areas of coverage, from buisness-reporting to foreign-correspondency to crime reporting. Wikileaks is a small, non-profit, organisation, and no other organisation has agreed to help it edit the files it releases in the absolute interest of the public. It does the best it can, with limited resources, to edit it's files. If they are insufficiently edited, the blame lies at the feet of those who refused to help. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 30, 2010 9:36:16 GMT -5
Wikileaks is a small, non-profit, organisation, and no other organisation has agreed to help it edit the files it releases in the absolute interest of the public. It does the best it can, with limited resources, to edit it's files. If they are insufficiently edited, the blame lies at the feet of those who refused to help. So, if the the organization leaking illegally (or at least underhandedly) obtained secret government documents damages our relations with other nations and gets covert agents killed, it is the fault of the government. Makes sense.  I will be back to lengthen this post with more direct responses when I get back from class (News Reporting for the Media, coincidentally). But right now, it sounds like wikileaks is leaking stuff without really knowing what they're doing (sitting on something for months doesn't tell you what is in it or how it will effect international relations or ongoing covert operations) and blackmailing the U.S. government in an attempt to avoid investigation of any kind. What the fuck ever happened to the days of guys like Edward R. Murrow or Woodward and Bernstein? Why are we relying on the political pirate bay to be do things right? |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 30, 2010 9:45:15 GMT -5
You know, if that worked, governments wouldn't be shady anymore. But oops, that hasn't happened. Oops, it did. Unless what you claim is that unless governments became perfect overnight, no improvement has ever happened, but you wouldn't, would you? Edit: m52nickerson: that's it, I am incapable of taking you seriously anymore. I'll be generous and point out that the statement I was countering was "Wikileaks does no good what so ever." and now you demand that I prove that this particular release is going to single-handedly save democracy, which is barely related. You should first support your own claim that making those gossips public are going to destroy diplomacy forever. Take your time, I'm going to sleep. Oh, so governments now do less shady things than they did before Wikileaks? Mind posting the evidence for such? |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 30, 2010 9:50:55 GMT -5
What code of ethics, make the people they don't like look bad? You know how they edited the video of the one Journalist getting killed with comments like "this is a camera" or "people trying to help". Wikileaks does no good what so ever. It does not make governments more open it just makes them more adapt at hiding secrets. The most vital ethical restraints for journalists are to be honest, truthful and sceptical and to verify to the best of your abillity before publishing. Wikileaks does that; the New York Times/Washington Post/CNN usually do not. For instance, it would be dishonest (and therefore unethical) for a journalist to imply a lack of honesty in Wikileaks' labelling of certain objects in their Collateral Murder video. The labelling was purely designed to increase ease of viewing. It would also be dishonest to imply that wikileaks showed an edited version of the video, since the shorter version was accompanied by a full, unedited video (that was less convenient for some viewers). Wikileaks aren't Andrew Breitbart. wikileaks is not accountable to anyone. Wikileaks is accountable to the law, and it's accountable to public opinion. That's a good deal more accountable than the average institution (corporations, the government, ect). Furthermore, despite that unusual level of accountability, it's almost powerless. It has even less power than the average Joe Blogger, because of it's high-profile nature. It owns no weapons, it has no cash. It has no army of journalists. All it has is a blog and credibility. Clearly, the real issue is that vast spying agencies set up by the government at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars are completely unaccountable even, in many cases, to that government. Particularly goven that that network does actually kill real people as opposed to wikipedia's imaginary ones. I'm not fully buying this one. They have no authority to be held to. If it becomes a point where they're being forced to close, simply move the host to a country where they can't be touched. Basically what I get out of this is they're reliable because the people read and use the info. When put to practice, the same could be used to claim Conservapedia, ED, and even Wikipedia are completely correct because the opinion of people control what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Nov 30, 2010 9:54:39 GMT -5
If one can dig a hole so deep in one field, what's to stop one from digging into the field of military secrets? The landmines? |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 30, 2010 12:17:58 GMT -5
Hey! HEY! HEY! DEAR GOD, HEY! Say Wikileaks isn't a good thing? CHECK THIS OUT!!! www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641Now, i gotta ask you, how will N. Korea think of flaunting its stuff when it realizes China is not ACTUALLY at their side!! HOOOOO DAMN! THANK YOU WIKILEAKS! WOOH! |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 30, 2010 12:31:44 GMT -5
Can you get a little more excited and hyper over it?
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 30, 2010 12:37:58 GMT -5
Not without combusting into a ball of flaming awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Nov 30, 2010 12:38:22 GMT -5
"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known." ~Barrack Obama in 2009
He's a fucking liar and hypocrite for opposing wikileaks
|
|
