Dottie wrote:I find speculation about Assanges quality of character to be completely beside the point. The important thing is that people like Bradley Manning have a channel to expose information. Now, in any half decent world that role would be fulfilled by the press, but since we don't live in a half decent world there seems to be a need for a middle man who can force the press to behave properly.
You might think that the contents of the diplomatic cables (That is, content that has been released and the press have not self-censored) is quite tame but footage of soldiers of the free world gunning down Reuters journalist is imo not. That's not the same thing as it being surprising mind you, but it's still important that it is documented.
I would tend to disagree. Taking something like Wikileaks at "face value" rather than looking at the potential negatives makes little sense to me. That this site is largely directed by a man who has no problem with toying with the media, who has a questionable history of shady legalities and who has a decided slant in a specific direction very much effects the information which actually makes it onto the Wikileaks site for public distribution is, in my mind, very important, since it places the entire site in some degree of context.
I have read back on this site a bit due to recent discussions on GB, and I know C Elegans is a neuroscientist and a friend of yours. No doubt she has also posted about her area of expertise. When something on the topic of neuroscience comes up, she is much more able to put it into context than other folks who have less experience. This can include who actually wrote the paper, their past experience in the field, and whether they have the credentials to do what they are doing. Exploring the context of something is important to understanding the details which are being released. The short of the short is that context is important. If we took some calls of peace from a few men at face value, it would sound wonderful -- until we noticed they were at the top of a violent dictatorship.
What matters here is not that Bradley Manning had a channel here. No doubt if Wikileaks was not around another channel would be available. What matters here is that people who aren't Bradley Manning can't seem to get information on other governments onto Wikileaks. Keep in mind that what once was a site more dedicated to such international issues has over time become much more restrictive in public access to the site itself, and what information potentially makes it on to Wikileaks. In my mind, claiming that this avoids the restrictions on the media is ignoring the fact that instead, it's the restrictions of the invisible hand of a few persons who are controlling the information distribution.
To ignore this trend, as well as ignoring the character of Assange, his current status in the world, and the status of much of the wikileaks director team, is basically like ignoring the potential for bias in media or in editorials. My concern is that members of this organization are actively cutting information or reducing information distribution about other topics in an attempt to control public sentiment, while continuing to focus on discussions about the US through publicity and media events. As Xandax said, this does seem to underline his point. Given that this site already has a history of keeping just about everything about itself, including it's methods of funding, private, I cannot help but feel that people lend too much credence to what is, essentially, an incredibly privately run project. It is a far cry from an open forum.
Also, keep in mind that citing a singular event is a very, very far cry from being able to say anything close to the other half million documents which have been released this year and how blown out of proportion they are. There is also some debate on that specific issue but I never was involved in that debate. The mass majority of the content has been blown out of proportion, simple as. This is the general public sentiment on the topic which I have seen expressed across the net.
I find that, on the net, people are far to willing to take an alternative to something which has negatives and play down the fact that it too has negatives. Most of the time, it has to do with things like media bias and a new station coming out, or a change in government, or something like this. If the world of Economics and the theories behind it have taught us anything, it's that things which sound good or bad might not actually be good or bad once we begin looking past the surface. I really do feel that with Wikileaks, even though it's largely a nuisance, people are far to willing to avoid looking past the surface to potential issues there. I don't mean to imply you are part of this group, Dottie, since there's every possibility I'm wrong here and this is my first time discussing something with you (so it'd hardly be a trend). This is more of a tangential ramble about topics in general which I felt driven to post.
My thoughts, anyways.
