3 ms·

> He confirmed that WikiLeaks has damaging, unpublished material from pharmaceutical companies, finance firms (aside from the upcoming bank release), and energy

> He confirmed that WikiLeaks has damaging, unpublished material from pharmaceutical companies, finance firms (aside from the upcoming bank release), and energy companies, just to name a few industries. The thing that I dislike most about this is Wikileaks alone gets to choose the conversations we have based solely on what they decide to publish. While it was understandable for anything that might actually be life threatening, it doesn't feel right for other types of information. I don't believe Wikileaks is an objective enough steward to get to decide all of the conversations we are going to have about information that was leaked to them. If you want me to believe you are impartial, dump it all; otherwise, you are trying to manipulate me just like Fox News does.

l0nwlf 16y ago
And how many of them will read the dump ? Will it create the impact as it is doing now ? Doesn't this fails the purpose of existance of wikileaks or say any whistleblower site.
psn 16y ago
OK, you're running a small non-profit organisation. You get a subset of the records of anglo irish bank, say a truck load's worth. (this is a example, not the current thing they are generating spin about). While most of these documents are in the public interest in Ireland and Europe (Anglo Irish bank have been on life support in Ireland for 2 years now, the money needed to keep it afloat has forced the IMF to bail out the Irish government) some aren't, for example records for customers. At this point, you need to get someone to read though millions of words and decide what to release. If you have money, you ring up the local temp agency and get a load of people to do it for you for minimum wage. However, wikileaks doesn't have money. They have to pick what piles of documents are worth reading though. I agree that its sucky, and would much prefer a system in which wikileaks had the resources to leak more stuff and were not picking and choosing what to release. However, I understand why wikileaks does what it does.
wnoise 16y ago
> Wikileaks alone gets to choose the conversations we have based solely on what they decide to publish. There's an entire ecosystem of media (ranging from MSM to bloggers) that sets the conversations. Picking out one small element and giving it this massive importance really isn't accurate. It's true that they editorialize by choosing what to cover and what not to. So do all news media. Don't you remember the NY times sitting on the warrantless wiretapping story for over a year? If you don't like the messages being pushed you have one option -- start using your own printing press. Create another site dedicated to publishing leaks,with your own editorial policy, such as "publish everything as soon as you get it".
marklabedz 16y ago
The mass communication theory here is known as "Agenda Setting Theory" - Google Scholar results for Agenda Setting: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=agenda+setting+theory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=agenda+setting+theory&#3...

l0nwlf 16y ago

And how many of them will read the dump ? Will it create the impact as it is doing now ? Doesn't this fails the purpose of existance of wikileaks or say any whistleblower site.

psn 16y ago

OK, you're running a small non-profit organisation. You get a subset of the records of anglo irish bank, say a truck load's worth. (this is a example, not the current thing they are generating spin about). While most of these documents are in the public interest in Ireland and Europe (Anglo Irish bank have been on life support in Ireland for 2 years now, the money needed to keep it afloat has forced the IMF to bail out the Irish government) some aren't, for example records for customers. At this point, you need to get someone to read though millions of words and decide what to release. If you have money, you ring up the local temp agency and get a load of people to do it for you for minimum wage. However, wikileaks doesn't have money. They have to pick what piles of documents are worth reading though. I agree that its sucky, and would much prefer a system in which wikileaks had the resources to leak more stuff and were not picking and choosing what to release. However, I understand why wikileaks does what it does.

wnoise 16y ago

> Wikileaks alone gets to choose the conversations we have based solely on what they decide to publish. There's an entire ecosystem of media (ranging from MSM to bloggers) that sets the conversations. Picking out one small element and giving it this massive importance really isn't accurate. It's true that they editorialize by choosing what to cover and what not to. So do all news media. Don't you remember the NY times sitting on the warrantless wiretapping story for over a year? If you don't like the messages being pushed you have one option -- start using your own printing press. Create another site dedicated to publishing leaks,with your own editorial policy, such as "publish everything as soon as you get it".

marklabedz 16y ago

The mass communication theory here is known as "Agenda Setting Theory" - Google Scholar results for Agenda Setting: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=agenda+setting+theory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=agenda+setting+theory&#3...