3 ms·
>The media [..] been minimally interested in the leaks themselves Here are two leading newspaper sites' special WikiLeaks section: http://www.nytimes.com/inter
by nir 16y ago
>The media [..] been minimally interested in the leaks themselves
Here are two leading newspaper sites' special WikiLeaks section:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks
There are quite a few more, in many languages. In my opinion it's the opposite of minimal interest.
The fact Assange's personal life are also reported makes sense. We can't claim he should be person of the year and at the same time expect no interest in his personal life.
I'm not sure I see the connection to Miller or Russert here. Is our understanding of the basic narrative (ie Manning obtaining the documents, passing them to Assange, disclosing it later to Lamo) likely to change if we have the full chat logs? Seems to me that rather than holding to some important truths, Wired are at best keeping some details they might hope to profit from later.
This is why Greenwald calling it "journalistic disgrace" comes off so hyperbolic. Rather than a reporter in search of truth, he comes off as a spoiled kid that learned to expect the world will provide him whatever he wants if he screams loud enough. As I wrote, the pundit for the Reddit generation.
- jeremymims 16y agoBy the media, I don't mean just The New York Times and The Guardian. There are more than 5000 local newspapers in this country (where most people get their information), cable tv, and radio. It's become a widely spread idea that this past round of Wikileaks contained nothing new. The Obama Administration has asserted this as fact and it was widely reported by CBS, BBC, The Huffington Post and more. However, these articles are widely syndicated and a quick search on Google brings this up: WikiLeaks Classified Diplomatic Cable Release Yields No Surprises ... - Daily Finance No surprises seen in WikiLeaks Iraq war data: Pentagon - Reuters (which is widely syndicated) WikiLeaks shocker? In Kabul, Pakistan support for Taliban is no surprise - Christian Science Monitor WikiLeaks torture cables no surprise - Yahoo News Heck, even a letter to the editor at the Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington, IL confirms my suspicion that many/most people don't believe there was anything new in the WikiLeaks dump at all: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_ab85fa5a-0ee8-11e0-b0e8-001cc4c03286.html http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_ab85f... "It wasn’t anything we didn’t know and it will all be forgotten, even by the media, except by the dumb military guy who gave them access to the Internet connections and will probably be tried for treason and left in jail." The perception has been created. Most people don't read The New York Times or the Guardian and most small town newspapers report what the AP and Reuters deliver on national matters. You won't find me arguing that Julian Assange isn't some kind of a story. But he's not even close to the whole thing. And he's basically irrelevant when it comes to investigating the leaks themselves. The information contained in the leaks are stories, most of which are glossed over by most of the media. Greenwald does a great job summing up a few of them: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24...
- nir 16y agoWould you expect the newspapers not to print what Obama says, if it downplays WikiLeaks importance? Or that a google search will not find you some stories that understate them? Or that when someone with Assange's prominence is charged with rape in Sweden (totally bogus IMHO, but still - Sweden is generally considered an advanced, sane nation) the media won't find it interesting? The world contains people who hold different opinions from Glen Greenwald, and they get to publish them too.