4 ms·
a) to whip up public outrage about the leak by declaring it an attack on US interests, US security and and endangering of the lives of US military and diplomati
by dtf 16y ago
a) to whip up public outrage about the leak by declaring it an attack on US interests, US security and and endangering of the lives of US military and diplomatic personnel.
b) be seen by the public to be doing something about a), in an effort to convince them of their efficacy at protecting against enemies of the US.
c) in keeping the biggest new sites and the public occupied with a) and b), distract as much attention as possible from the contents of the cables.
If you look around the world, most governments are taking a similar strategy.
- pigbucket 16y agoI think this is right. While it's amusing to note the apparent heterogeneity in responses from representatives of the state to the leaks (criminal! boring! dangerous! nothing new!), looked on as a strategy of noise generation to drown out the signal (i.e., revelations of criminal activity by the state), the approach is cohesive and effective, and it demonstrates unrestrained contempt for the American people.