4 ms·

Wikileaks had a chance to be more than a bedroom operation, and it would have made them far more powerful than they are now. Building a network of aligned journ

Wikileaks had a chance to be more than a bedroom operation, and it would have made them far more powerful than they are now. Building a network of aligned journalists and political allies would have increased visibility, attracted more leaks with localized impact, and made it much harder to shut down discussion of contents with "this was stolen", as the Democrats are now doing with complicity of much of the US media. But as we saw with the author's NDA story, Assange is the #1 enemy of that ever happening. He reflexively accuses anyone with their own publicity approach of being a careerist or worse, then logs into twitter to align not just himself, but Wikileaks the organization, with the most extreme possible opponents of his enemies. The impact that the leaker wants to make, the stories good journalists could write, even most third party mining of leaks is ignored in favor of Julian Assange's personal agenda. I think the world would be better off with a bigger, broader Wikileaks that promotes journalism instead of mistrusting it.

johnfjacobi 10y ago
But many people don't realize that this kind of idiosyncratic asshole-ishness is how a lot of successful rebels / revolutionaries work, cultural and political. Lenin is a great example, and the most illustrative for me because I spent so much time studying him. The man was factionalistic to the point of absurdity. Always he was dreaming of a new epithet to throw: economism, leftism, opportunism, etc. But because of this he insulated a radical minority and made them disloyal to anything but the ideology he was using to direct their political action. And in the end it worked. Steve Jobs did a similar thing, but I'm sure I don't have to explain that one here.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  "...And in the end it worked." While I have an idea of what you mean, I'd reexamine that conclusion. It worked for a while. IMO, the Soviet system wasn't sustainable until Khrushchev - Beria and Stalin were constantly trying to figure out when the other was going to murder them. I think the pathology in play for Lenin and Stalin was akin to eliminationism on a smaller scale - once someone became "othered", they were pretty much destined for one behind the ear.
  - johnfjacobi 10y ago
    I don't mean that communism worked, but that Lenin achieved what he wanted as far as actual revolution is concerned. What you said is true though, and I think it has to do with the problems inherent in trying to "plan a society."
Mizza 10y ago
I think you've proved my point by missing it. > "Building a network of aligned journalists and political allies would have increased visibility, attracted more leaks with localized impact, and made it much harder to shut down discussion of contents with "this was stolen", as the Democrats are now doing with complicity of much of the US media." What you're describing is called "starting a newspaper." This happens all the time. The Intercept is a good example of what you're talking about, there are hundreds of others. BuzzFeed, HuffPo, Drudge, take your pick. It's not the same thing. I can explain the difference if you'd like me to.
- branchless 10y ago
  Exactly. What do we want? Tips on stories inside banks from the likes of journo Chris Giles at the FT who is utterly wedded to the status quo, along with tens of other "journalists"? Our media is like a sieve, only instead of finding the unusual and challenging thinkers it weeds them out and retains the unthinking dross whose only ambition is to join the establishment and kick back.
  - resfirestar 10y ago
    Just because you can think of one journalist you wouldn't want handling financial leaks doesn't mean they're all rotten. Were the Panama Papers (ICIJ) not well handled? Even the Los Angeles Times apparently had the guts to publish a story that took the side of low level bank employees, eventually bringing down the chairman of Wells Fargo. And what's the implied better alternative, anyway? When Wikileaks does a data dump, most people aren't poring over it all night, it's usually people in the same media you decry who bring important revelations to mass attention. Giving them a head start to potentially write a great story doesn't seem like something that should be wildly controversial.
    - branchless 10y ago
      As the parent post suggested I don't want wikileaks merging/'empowered' with our largely supine press.
- 10y ago
empath75 10y ago
I'm okay with publishing dnc leaks. Or RNC leaks. Or whatever else he wants to leak. But there was absolutely no reason for him to provide cover for Russian intelligence. If they wanted to publish the leaks, they could have. He wasn't protecting anyone by providing anonymity. He was just providing plausible deniability.

johnfjacobi 10y ago

But many people don't realize that this kind of idiosyncratic asshole-ishness is how a lot of successful rebels / revolutionaries work, cultural and political. Lenin is a great example, and the most illustrative for me because I spent so much time studying him. The man was factionalistic to the point of absurdity. Always he was dreaming of a new epithet to throw: economism, leftism, opportunism, etc. But because of this he insulated a radical minority and made them disloyal to anything but the ideology he was using to direct their political action. And in the end it worked. Steve Jobs did a similar thing, but I'm sure I don't have to explain that one here.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
"...And in the end it worked." While I have an idea of what you mean, I'd reexamine that conclusion. It worked for a while. IMO, the Soviet system wasn't sustainable until Khrushchev - Beria and Stalin were constantly trying to figure out when the other was going to murder them. I think the pathology in play for Lenin and Stalin was akin to eliminationism on a smaller scale - once someone became "othered", they were pretty much destined for one behind the ear.
- johnfjacobi 10y ago
  I don't mean that communism worked, but that Lenin achieved what he wanted as far as actual revolution is concerned. What you said is true though, and I think it has to do with the problems inherent in trying to "plan a society."

Mizza 10y ago

I think you've proved my point by missing it. > "Building a network of aligned journalists and political allies would have increased visibility, attracted more leaks with localized impact, and made it much harder to shut down discussion of contents with "this was stolen", as the Democrats are now doing with complicity of much of the US media." What you're describing is called "starting a newspaper." This happens all the time. The Intercept is a good example of what you're talking about, there are hundreds of others. BuzzFeed, HuffPo, Drudge, take your pick. It's not the same thing. I can explain the difference if you'd like me to.

branchless 10y ago
Exactly. What do we want? Tips on stories inside banks from the likes of journo Chris Giles at the FT who is utterly wedded to the status quo, along with tens of other "journalists"? Our media is like a sieve, only instead of finding the unusual and challenging thinkers it weeds them out and retains the unthinking dross whose only ambition is to join the establishment and kick back.
- resfirestar 10y ago
  Just because you can think of one journalist you wouldn't want handling financial leaks doesn't mean they're all rotten. Were the Panama Papers (ICIJ) not well handled? Even the Los Angeles Times apparently had the guts to publish a story that took the side of low level bank employees, eventually bringing down the chairman of Wells Fargo. And what's the implied better alternative, anyway? When Wikileaks does a data dump, most people aren't poring over it all night, it's usually people in the same media you decry who bring important revelations to mass attention. Giving them a head start to potentially write a great story doesn't seem like something that should be wildly controversial.
  - branchless 10y ago
    As the parent post suggested I don't want wikileaks merging/'empowered' with our largely supine press.
10y ago

empath75 10y ago

I'm okay with publishing dnc leaks. Or RNC leaks. Or whatever else he wants to leak. But there was absolutely no reason for him to provide cover for Russian intelligence. If they wanted to publish the leaks, they could have. He wasn't protecting anyone by providing anonymity. He was just providing plausible deniability.