8 ms·

Wikileaks internal memo on "The Fifth Estate"

210 points by sidi 13y ago

sidi 13y ago
I found the memo quite insightful as it goes into specific details on why and how the movie depiction differs from their perspective. Some quotes from the memo: "THE FIFTH ESTATE falsely implies that WikiLeaks harmed 2,000 US government informants. ... US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever." "Although THE FIFTH ESTATE purports to be about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the film was made without the involvement of WikiLeaks or any of its staff, including Julian Assange. ... The multi-million dollar production, produced by Dreamworks and distributed by Disney, has not financially contributed to WikiLeaks or any of its defence funds."
- harryf 13y ago
  Sadly I get the feeling the memo won't help reduce the misinformation effect of the film. Unlikely the mainstream press outlets will even pick this up. Perhaps negative IMDB reviews is the best that can be hoped for
- mpyne 13y ago
  > US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever Not being able to prove harm is different from proving that one did not harm someone. Especially when, in this case, the U.S. took measures to pre-emptively mitigate any harm as a preventive concern. Was the U.S. supposed to let their informants be killed by the Taliban just to be able to say that Assange is an even bigger asshole? Please.
  - hhw 13y ago
    I guess you don't subscribe to innocent until proven guilty? Even after exhaustive investigation and efforts to prove such guilt?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I believe there is a difference between reality and what the legal system is able to prove. They are necessarily different, as the legal system must apply to society as a whole, which means that we require it to have safeguards that will necessarily reduce its ability to deliver convictions. This doesn't mean that any party not convicted didn't do it; it simply means they were convicted, just as the legal system sometimes manages to deliver convictions on people who were actually innocent. In this case there's no way to even think of how to apply a legal-style investigation except under some kind of quantum parallel-universe model. Exhaustive investigation or not, the fact remains that as soon as the U.S. learned of the leaks they took prompt action to forestall the ability of AQ and the Taliban to act on those leaks, which forever screwed up the possibility of conclusively determining which particular individuals would or would not have been slain. That the threat was mitigated doesn't mean there wasn't an existential threat though, nor does it need a jury of 12 people to demonstrate what is plainly obvious: Loose Lips Sink Ships.
dublinben 13y ago
"internal" I don't believe for a second this document wasn't intended for public release from the outset.
- chm 13y ago
  Why couldn't the person(s) in charge of reviewing the script(s) have prepared a presentation/document in order to inform the rest of the crew about it and _then_ collectively decided to publish certain information?
- seabee 13y ago
  Their raison d'être is transparency, but publicising an internal memo doesn't magically turn it into a press release. It is clearly structured and written for WikiLeaks affiliated staff to use when discussing the film, anything else is a bonus.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Correction: Their raison d'être used to be transparency. They are certainly willing now to hold onto documents that do not advance their own political agenda. Likewise the memo is sitting on a public folder on wikileaks.org, I'm pretty sure Assange or his troops could hack together a private intranet if that was what was actually desired here. This is a PR release that is just as transparent as when the U.S. "leaks" positive news to the NYT.
Debugreality 13y ago
Very insightful for me the most interesting part was near the end where it outlines - "The most significant journalists and whistleblowers in the world (that) are either political exiles, political prisoners, or the targets of criminal investigations by an overreaching security state." Many of these I had heard of but many more I had not... It's a little chilling honestly.
rurounijones 13y ago
Couldn't they sue the film-makers for defamation / libel / slander (whichever one it is) for the "2,000 informants harmed" claim? Be hard for the "Based on a true story" defense to work for that I would think.
- sidi 13y ago
  Although it contains real names and real places, the film will justify itself as fictional making it harder to target for defamation / libel / slander. Edit: Another way the film can get off the hook is by claiming the information depicted is based on the sources (books) it uses for forming the script. I can only speculate, but what matters is shaping the public opinion and they are doing it by leaking the script and expressing their opposition to it. Another guess is they need definitive evidence before sueing the film/makers. To quote from their memo: "Although the film has premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and numerous other media organizations have been shown review copies, the studio continues to refuse to show the film to WikiLeaks staff."
  - rurounijones 13y ago
    That would seem like a very flimsy defence. If I were wikileaks I would be arguing that one.
    - tehwalrus 13y ago
      certainly in the UK weasel words get you precisely nowhere in Libel. If you know what you were saying, and your audience knew it too, then you can be sued.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  It would be difficult for Assange to appear in court to give evidence.
- Rebelgecko 13y ago
  Having seen the movie, I don't remember it actually making the claim that 2000 informants were harmed.
BWStearns 13y ago
>> "stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever" First, I don't actually believe that the Wikileaks releases (Manning's) really caused that much damage, in fact we came out smelling like roses in most cases, our allies however frequently looked like asses (think Saudis wanting to tag gitmo inmates with bird trackers). The thing here to consider is 1) by the Wikileaks statement above it would seem that the purpose was never to counter US interests [calling bullshit here, support or oppose Assange/WL != pro US gov], so it is disingenuous at best to us the lack of damaging information to suggest that WL was not an anti-USG group. Is the Disney film less than fully accurate? I'd bet so, it's a commercial endeavor. I'm more disappointed that Wikileaks chose to focus on the USG and GB than all of the upstanding states around the world like Syria, Russia, North Korea, and China. Sure, when the US fucks up, call us out on it, that's part of an informed democracy. WL/Assange pretended to be the vanguard of transparency (and when they first announced such ambitions I actually was rooting for them). Instead of focusing on the most opaque and oppressive governments, they focused on finding the warts on governments that by and large are respective of human rights. Russia? Fuck it you get a pass because Assange doesn't have ricin-proof pants yet. NK? Do you know how hard it is to get documents from there? </rant> Seriously though, I am disappointed. When they stood up I thought they were going to actually go after folks who actively opposed free speech and human rights. Instead they went after the targets that were easiest to create media stories out of. I would like for Wikileaks to get the memos on the election rigging in Azerbaijan, I would like for them to get the UN memos between RF and Syria. To borrow the line from Rick, I don't mind a whistle blower, I just mind a cut rate one.
- vacri 13y ago
  This is the same argument as "you cops should be out catching the real criminals!"
  - BWStearns 13y ago
    Really. You are suggesting that the US government is on the same level of opacity or human rights abuse as any of those that I mentioned? Are you literally fucking stoned?[1] [1] No judgement, I've had a decent amount of scotch and to each their own, but really? [edit: legalize it, and then tax it, and give me a tax break :) ]
JessicaSWilliam 13y ago
============================== ==============================upto I looked at the check of $5108, I didnt believe that...my... friend woz like they say trully earning money part time on their apple labtop.. there aunt haz done this for only 22 months and as of now paid for the morgage on there condo and got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover. go to my blog ============================== WWW.Works23.Com =============================
meowface 13y ago
It is rather sleazy that they tried to portray Assange as a self-obsessed, egomaniacal cult leader of some kind. Claiming he was in a cult and bleaches his hair, etc. Quite an ad hominem (even if the movie is not intended to be a documentary or a polemic). People are going to watch the movie, see that, and go "oh, what a nut job" even though it's completely fictional. Really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also the claims that Assange is responsible for the harm or death of Americans, or that they later leaked unredacted documents. The Social Network's dramatization of Zuckerberg wasn't nearly that acrid, in comparison.
- gadders 13y ago
  Do they cover the (alleged) rapes that Assange was involved in?
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    The article states that they claim Assange was charged with 'rape' in Sweden, and that Assange has never been charged with anything by anyone.
    - gadders 13y ago
      Doesn't he need to go back to Sweden to be charged? TBH that's just semantics. He's wanted for rape, his extradition was appealed and still went through. He's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid the rape "charges".
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        I am not an expert on Swedish law. I'm just repeating the article.
  - nailer 13y ago
    If so, I hope they also show the excited tweets Ardin before/at the party she then attended with her alleged rapist. http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml
steve19 13y ago
It's a press release, not an internal memo.
junto 13y ago
We should look at the finances of the film and see if the USG helped to fund it.
junto 13y ago
Can ayone explain this statement that Wikileaks makes? Sarah Harrison, the WikiLeaks journalist who accompanied Edward Snowden from Hong Kong and assisted his successful asylum bid, is in effective exile in Russia. Why is she 'effectively in exile'? What would she be charged with if she returned to the UK?
- mattlutze 13y ago
  Aiding and Abetting, maybe. She'd certainly be arrested and interrogated, and then potentially be charged with contempt if she refused under order to disclose other information she may know about Snowden.
Bartweiss 13y ago
This movie seems a lot more like character assassination than either fictionalized storytelling or documentary. It's not as though the Wikileaks story lacks drama, moral ambiguity, or a couple of clear villains when told accurately. This begs the question - why give a wildly inaccurate version of events if it isn't significantly enriching the film?
- nilved 13y ago
  You answered that question in your first sentence.
camino020 13y ago
This kind of movie is called Propaganda. But oh, wait, there is no such thing in a democracy..errrr...
nilved 13y ago
It's a shame such a remarkably terrible film had such a good lead. Now I can't watch any of his other works.

210 points by sidi 13y ago

sidi 13y ago

I found the memo quite insightful as it goes into specific details on why and how the movie depiction differs from their perspective. Some quotes from the memo: "THE FIFTH ESTATE falsely implies that WikiLeaks harmed 2,000 US government informants. ... US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever." "Although THE FIFTH ESTATE purports to be about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the film was made without the involvement of WikiLeaks or any of its staff, including Julian Assange. ... The multi-million dollar production, produced by Dreamworks and distributed by Disney, has not financially contributed to WikiLeaks or any of its defence funds."

harryf 13y ago
Sadly I get the feeling the memo won't help reduce the misinformation effect of the film. Unlikely the mainstream press outlets will even pick this up. Perhaps negative IMDB reviews is the best that can be hoped for
mpyne 13y ago
> US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever Not being able to prove harm is different from proving that one did not harm someone. Especially when, in this case, the U.S. took measures to pre-emptively mitigate any harm as a preventive concern. Was the U.S. supposed to let their informants be killed by the Taliban just to be able to say that Assange is an even bigger asshole? Please.
- hhw 13y ago
  I guess you don't subscribe to innocent until proven guilty? Even after exhaustive investigation and efforts to prove such guilt?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I believe there is a difference between reality and what the legal system is able to prove. They are necessarily different, as the legal system must apply to society as a whole, which means that we require it to have safeguards that will necessarily reduce its ability to deliver convictions. This doesn't mean that any party not convicted didn't do it; it simply means they were convicted, just as the legal system sometimes manages to deliver convictions on people who were actually innocent. In this case there's no way to even think of how to apply a legal-style investigation except under some kind of quantum parallel-universe model. Exhaustive investigation or not, the fact remains that as soon as the U.S. learned of the leaks they took prompt action to forestall the ability of AQ and the Taliban to act on those leaks, which forever screwed up the possibility of conclusively determining which particular individuals would or would not have been slain. That the threat was mitigated doesn't mean there wasn't an existential threat though, nor does it need a jury of 12 people to demonstrate what is plainly obvious: Loose Lips Sink Ships.

dublinben 13y ago

"internal" I don't believe for a second this document wasn't intended for public release from the outset.

chm 13y ago
Why couldn't the person(s) in charge of reviewing the script(s) have prepared a presentation/document in order to inform the rest of the crew about it and _then_ collectively decided to publish certain information?
seabee 13y ago
Their raison d'être is transparency, but publicising an internal memo doesn't magically turn it into a press release. It is clearly structured and written for WikiLeaks affiliated staff to use when discussing the film, anything else is a bonus.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Correction: Their raison d'être used to be transparency. They are certainly willing now to hold onto documents that do not advance their own political agenda. Likewise the memo is sitting on a public folder on wikileaks.org, I'm pretty sure Assange or his troops could hack together a private intranet if that was what was actually desired here. This is a PR release that is just as transparent as when the U.S. "leaks" positive news to the NYT.

Debugreality 13y ago

Very insightful for me the most interesting part was near the end where it outlines - "The most significant journalists and whistleblowers in the world (that) are either political exiles, political prisoners, or the targets of criminal investigations by an overreaching security state." Many of these I had heard of but many more I had not... It's a little chilling honestly.

rurounijones 13y ago

Couldn't they sue the film-makers for defamation / libel / slander (whichever one it is) for the "2,000 informants harmed" claim? Be hard for the "Based on a true story" defense to work for that I would think.

sidi 13y ago
Although it contains real names and real places, the film will justify itself as fictional making it harder to target for defamation / libel / slander. Edit: Another way the film can get off the hook is by claiming the information depicted is based on the sources (books) it uses for forming the script. I can only speculate, but what matters is shaping the public opinion and they are doing it by leaking the script and expressing their opposition to it. Another guess is they need definitive evidence before sueing the film/makers. To quote from their memo: "Although the film has premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and numerous other media organizations have been shown review copies, the studio continues to refuse to show the film to WikiLeaks staff."
- rurounijones 13y ago
  That would seem like a very flimsy defence. If I were wikileaks I would be arguing that one.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    certainly in the UK weasel words get you precisely nowhere in Libel. If you know what you were saying, and your audience knew it too, then you can be sued.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
It would be difficult for Assange to appear in court to give evidence.
Rebelgecko 13y ago
Having seen the movie, I don't remember it actually making the claim that 2000 informants were harmed.

BWStearns 13y ago

>> "stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever" First, I don't actually believe that the Wikileaks releases (Manning's) really caused that much damage, in fact we came out smelling like roses in most cases, our allies however frequently looked like asses (think Saudis wanting to tag gitmo inmates with bird trackers). The thing here to consider is 1) by the Wikileaks statement above it would seem that the purpose was never to counter US interests [calling bullshit here, support or oppose Assange/WL != pro US gov], so it is disingenuous at best to us the lack of damaging information to suggest that WL was not an anti-USG group. Is the Disney film less than fully accurate? I'd bet so, it's a commercial endeavor. I'm more disappointed that Wikileaks chose to focus on the USG and GB than all of the upstanding states around the world like Syria, Russia, North Korea, and China. Sure, when the US fucks up, call us out on it, that's part of an informed democracy. WL/Assange pretended to be the vanguard of transparency (and when they first announced such ambitions I actually was rooting for them). Instead of focusing on the most opaque and oppressive governments, they focused on finding the warts on governments that by and large are respective of human rights. Russia? Fuck it you get a pass because Assange doesn't have ricin-proof pants yet. NK? Do you know how hard it is to get documents from there? </rant> Seriously though, I am disappointed. When they stood up I thought they were going to actually go after folks who actively opposed free speech and human rights. Instead they went after the targets that were easiest to create media stories out of. I would like for Wikileaks to get the memos on the election rigging in Azerbaijan, I would like for them to get the UN memos between RF and Syria. To borrow the line from Rick, I don't mind a whistle blower, I just mind a cut rate one.

vacri 13y ago
This is the same argument as "you cops should be out catching the real criminals!"
- BWStearns 13y ago
  Really. You are suggesting that the US government is on the same level of opacity or human rights abuse as any of those that I mentioned? Are you literally fucking stoned?[1] [1] No judgement, I've had a decent amount of scotch and to each their own, but really? [edit: legalize it, and then tax it, and give me a tax break :) ]

JessicaSWilliam 13y ago

============================== ==============================upto I looked at the check of $5108, I didnt believe that...my... friend woz like they say trully earning money part time on their apple labtop.. there aunt haz done this for only 22 months and as of now paid for the morgage on there condo and got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover. go to my blog ============================== WWW.Works23.Com =============================

meowface 13y ago

It is rather sleazy that they tried to portray Assange as a self-obsessed, egomaniacal cult leader of some kind. Claiming he was in a cult and bleaches his hair, etc. Quite an ad hominem (even if the movie is not intended to be a documentary or a polemic). People are going to watch the movie, see that, and go "oh, what a nut job" even though it's completely fictional. Really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also the claims that Assange is responsible for the harm or death of Americans, or that they later leaked unredacted documents. The Social Network's dramatization of Zuckerberg wasn't nearly that acrid, in comparison.

gadders 13y ago
Do they cover the (alleged) rapes that Assange was involved in?
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  The article states that they claim Assange was charged with 'rape' in Sweden, and that Assange has never been charged with anything by anyone.
  - gadders 13y ago
    Doesn't he need to go back to Sweden to be charged? TBH that's just semantics. He's wanted for rape, his extradition was appealed and still went through. He's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid the rape "charges".
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      I am not an expert on Swedish law. I'm just repeating the article.
- nailer 13y ago
  If so, I hope they also show the excited tweets Ardin before/at the party she then attended with her alleged rapist. http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml

steve19 13y ago

It's a press release, not an internal memo.

junto 13y ago

We should look at the finances of the film and see if the USG helped to fund it.

junto 13y ago

Can ayone explain this statement that Wikileaks makes? Sarah Harrison, the WikiLeaks journalist who accompanied Edward Snowden from Hong Kong and assisted his successful asylum bid, is in effective exile in Russia. Why is she 'effectively in exile'? What would she be charged with if she returned to the UK?

mattlutze 13y ago
Aiding and Abetting, maybe. She'd certainly be arrested and interrogated, and then potentially be charged with contempt if she refused under order to disclose other information she may know about Snowden.

Bartweiss 13y ago

This movie seems a lot more like character assassination than either fictionalized storytelling or documentary. It's not as though the Wikileaks story lacks drama, moral ambiguity, or a couple of clear villains when told accurately. This begs the question - why give a wildly inaccurate version of events if it isn't significantly enriching the film?

nilved 13y ago
You answered that question in your first sentence.

camino020 13y ago

This kind of movie is called Propaganda. But oh, wait, there is no such thing in a democracy..errrr...

nilved 13y ago

It's a shame such a remarkably terrible film had such a good lead. Now I can't watch any of his other works.