4 ms·

"WikiLeaks lost me when they released selectively edited video, spliced in editorial overlays, registered a domain name "CollateralMurder" and advocated a posit

by Rod 16y ago

"WikiLeaks lost me when they released selectively edited video, spliced in editorial overlays, registered a domain name "CollateralMurder" and advocated a position." Showing that the U.S. Military makes mistakes helps destroy the dangerous myth that all U.S. servicemen are saints. I have no idea how this meme that "WikiLeaks is bad because it showed U.S. soldiers doing bad things" was born, but it's, frankly, really ludicrous. When you see cold-blooded murder right before your eyes, you do take a stand. If you don't, you're a monster. Or an accomplice. Period.

roboneal 16y ago
You missed my point entirely. If they want to leak material showing the government doing "bad things", go ahead. Leak it. All of it. The more the better. But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY.
- jimmyjim 16y ago
  > But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY. To be fair, both the edited and the complete video of the attack were released simultaneously. Watching some 40 minutes of a clip mostly filled with inaction vs. the clip containing only the important parts with context, which would you rather watch? I know what I'll choose, time is important to me. I can almost understand your argument against the editorializing, but the bottom line (at least to me) is that Wikileaks does eventually leak all data in its entirety, you can so choose to ignore all their commentary if you desire.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Wikileaks presented their "full" version as "uncut" but is actually missing 30 minutes -- Gawker covered this in some detail: http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gawker/full+(Gawker) http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-... In addition, there is a lot of "context" in the edited out footage of even Wikileaks "full" version (timestamps): 0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents. 0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.” 1:05 “One of them has a weapon.” 1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag). 3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.” 4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?” 4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over. 4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.” 5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out). 5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…” 6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.” 6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.” 6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”
    - jimmyjim 16y ago
      Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, ___Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did___. Although, the article goes on to argue whether they still can call it the "full video", but that's just a debate of semantics then. I am at the moment unsure whether the timestamped captions were a part of the original source video or not. It would be disappointing if it were, just as disappointing was WikiLeaks' decision to go by the 'collateral damage' domain, still however -- they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material.
      - roboneal 16y ago
        "they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material." My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint. Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
        jimmyjim 16y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here -- the Gawker article you linked to makes it clear that Wikileaks did not cut/edit the video. Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
        roboneal 16y ago
        Wikileaks presented the video as "full & uncut" and Gawker called them out on it. Notice they didn't mention the 30min was removed when promoting that video..they had to be called out on it. Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - roboneal 16y ago
    -- "Do you advocate invading countries that pose no threat to you?" Smells a little like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Nice troll bait - I think I'll pass.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Agreed. Though it's worth pointing out that your comment above that is dangerously close to another bad rhetoric; that of the straw man. Disagreeing with anti-war advocacy does not mean advocating war.
- lhnz 16y ago
  We're all advocates for something. What is wrong with advocacy?
shareme 16y ago
your are delusional about the definition of murder and war. 1. Murder is the un-lawful killing of humans by other humans. 2. Murder in war occurs when humans kill other humans by not acting within the confines of the rules of war. Although most military bodies including US military have to follow Geneva convention that does not mean every war time act is lawful. How many unlawful military acts in Iraq/Afghanistan got prosecuted last year? More than one did. This specific event has not been ruled un-lawful yet and reporters are always told that in battle areas if they are with the armed enemy they may risk being fired upon. Hence, the Collateral part of the video name. However, usually in these cases its the organization workings that fail the solider in determining differences between lawful and unlawful acts not the individual solider himself or herself.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    All important points to raise. But. Not an awful lot to do with that specific video; which is our whole point about pushing the agenda. It was twisted from an important video about the killing of civilians into a statement about the legitimacy of the war. That is exactly what Fox or one of the other big networks do to stories ;)
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        If Fox spins the fact to sell war, why would spinning the facts to sell peace be morally wrong? Because that way lies insanity - it also undermines any arguments against Fox's bias. In fact it becomes even more problematic; if both sides are twisting the story then that risk legitimising Fox's stance. That is dangerous. Morally it would be... complicated but could be done in good faith. Logically it seems a poor choice.

by Rod 16y ago

roboneal 16y ago

You missed my point entirely. If they want to leak material showing the government doing "bad things", go ahead. Leak it. All of it. The more the better. But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY.

jimmyjim 16y ago
> But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY. To be fair, both the edited and the complete video of the attack were released simultaneously. Watching some 40 minutes of a clip mostly filled with inaction vs. the clip containing only the important parts with context, which would you rather watch? I know what I'll choose, time is important to me. I can almost understand your argument against the editorializing, but the bottom line (at least to me) is that Wikileaks does eventually leak all data in its entirety, you can so choose to ignore all their commentary if you desire.
- roboneal 16y ago
  Wikileaks presented their "full" version as "uncut" but is actually missing 30 minutes -- Gawker covered this in some detail: http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gawker/full+(Gawker) http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-... In addition, there is a lot of "context" in the edited out footage of even Wikileaks "full" version (timestamps): 0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents. 0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.” 1:05 “One of them has a weapon.” 1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag). 3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.” 4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?” 4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over. 4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.” 5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out). 5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…” 6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.” 6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.” 6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”
  - jimmyjim 16y ago
    Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, ___Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did___. Although, the article goes on to argue whether they still can call it the "full video", but that's just a debate of semantics then. I am at the moment unsure whether the timestamped captions were a part of the original source video or not. It would be disappointing if it were, just as disappointing was WikiLeaks' decision to go by the 'collateral damage' domain, still however -- they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material.
    - roboneal 16y ago
      "they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material." My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint. Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
      - jimmyjim 16y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here -- the Gawker article you linked to makes it clear that Wikileaks did not cut/edit the video. Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
        roboneal 16y ago
        Wikileaks presented the video as "full & uncut" and Gawker called them out on it. Notice they didn't mention the 30min was removed when promoting that video..they had to be called out on it. Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- roboneal 16y ago
  -- "Do you advocate invading countries that pose no threat to you?" Smells a little like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Nice troll bait - I think I'll pass.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Agreed. Though it's worth pointing out that your comment above that is dangerously close to another bad rhetoric; that of the straw man. Disagreeing with anti-war advocacy does not mean advocating war.
lhnz 16y ago
We're all advocates for something. What is wrong with advocacy?

shareme 16y ago

your are delusional about the definition of murder and war. 1. Murder is the un-lawful killing of humans by other humans. 2. Murder in war occurs when humans kill other humans by not acting within the confines of the rules of war. Although most military bodies including US military have to follow Geneva convention that does not mean every war time act is lawful. How many unlawful military acts in Iraq/Afghanistan got prosecuted last year? More than one did. This specific event has not been ruled un-lawful yet and reporters are always told that in battle areas if they are with the armed enemy they may risk being fired upon. Hence, the Collateral part of the video name. However, usually in these cases its the organization workings that fail the solider in determining differences between lawful and unlawful acts not the individual solider himself or herself.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- ErrantX 16y ago
  All important points to raise. But. Not an awful lot to do with that specific video; which is our whole point about pushing the agenda. It was twisted from an important video about the killing of civilians into a statement about the legitimacy of the war. That is exactly what Fox or one of the other big networks do to stories ;)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      If Fox spins the fact to sell war, why would spinning the facts to sell peace be morally wrong? Because that way lies insanity - it also undermines any arguments against Fox's bias. In fact it becomes even more problematic; if both sides are twisting the story then that risk legitimising Fox's stance. That is dangerous. Morally it would be... complicated but could be done in good faith. Logically it seems a poor choice.