5 ms·
That's sadly true. Same goes for WL's recent policy of sensationalism; in their early years, they simply released documents. Now it's dramatic titles, commentar
by szpindel 16y ago
That's sadly true. Same goes for WL's recent policy of sensationalism; in their early years, they simply released documents. Now it's dramatic titles, commentary, expensive media deals. I have nothing against WL for this; it's simply a sign that, unless things are made dramatic - indeed, even if things are made dramatic, after the first few weeks - the public no longer care.
- lhnz 16y agoYou seem to care, but you sound apathetic. Would you try and do anything about it if I and others were to ask you to help?
- Abid 16y agoBut you have to acknowledge the fact that more people are now exposed to the Wikileaks data precisely because of Wikileaks's "dramatic" release announcements.
- tedunangst 16y agoI actually care less when things are made dramatic. When WL was a repository of truth, I supported it. As its mission changes to become an agent for change, I support it less.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y agoChange comes from truth and truth leads to change. I do not quite understand your argument either. Are you unable to stick to the "truth" part and ignore the "agenda" part. It is like in literature classes when you start talking about the personal life of the author. Does it matter what he does or is, or is the book and the book alone that matters?
- tedunangst 16y agoYes, I find it hard to focus on the truth (or rather, believe they are telling the truth) when the agenda gets in the way.