' Wrote:You see, it all comes to the question about the effeciency of system that provides a social agreement between journalists and the people, the government and the people and that way can or can not guarantee the abuse of power provided by a certain social role. For example, when government is abusing its power the balance should be restored and the same approach works in any case. I suppose that most of us can say that our governments or politicians abuse their powers in one way or another so the existance of Wikilieaks is justified.
Could you clarify your statement, because it doesn't make much sense to me.
' Wrote:Could you clarify your statement, because it doesn't make much sense to me.
Bad for you.
Let's say that the system that provides balance between different groups limited by certain social agreements and powered by those social agreements is not that effective. And in that case an abuse of one's granted powers is a usual thing. It wasn't me to start discussing social roles, you know.
Quote:2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
2 Members: sadtranslation, Zelot
By the way, nobody cares. Kudos and I'm going to have a nap.
if politicians & media were trustworthy/had integrity/not ruled by money, & the public were unapathetic about it, then sites like wikilinks would never have been created in the first place.
if politicians & media were trustworthy/had integrity/not ruled by money, & the public were unapathetic about it, then sites like wikilinks would never have been created in the first place.
if politicians & media were trustworthy/had integrity/not ruled by money, & the public were unapathetic about it, then sites like wikilinks would never have been created in the first place.
Precisely. I've actually gotten to the point where I actively distrust the American news media. They're all too beholden to one political/corporate interest or another, and spin the news accordingly. It's a good thing that somebody is still willing to shine a light into the government's shadowy business. Maybe the bugs will even scatter, eventually...
But ya I agree. These guys have no limit, and there needs to be one. Like i said, they'd put up (and they probably have done so already) anything. Even if they actively know that they may very well start a war/dispute/hate and so forth.
Honestly, Wikileaks is just being far too sensationalist to really warrant any merit. They aren't releasing documents with any major focus at all, they're doing it 'just because'. As Dieter mentioned in an earlier post, the whole "Collateral Murder" piece could have been done in better taste. And the diplomatic cable documents? What, that our diplomats aren't saying some nice things about the other nations we talk to? I'm sure that cable documents from Russia would show they have some choice words to say about the EU, or that China probably thinks all of southeast Asia is full of idiots.
I would be more interested in seeing documents concerning things in the US itself. I would like to see if money is actually being directed to education, research, civil projects appropriately. I would like to see what exactly politicians are doing for business, or to what extent lobbyists are actually influencing what decisions our government makes. Until that point, Wikileaks is just like any other media outlet that's just trying to make an inane grab for attention.
Maybe some day, they'll see a hero is just a man who knowshe's free.
One day, I heard about wikileaks from a friend who was so excited I thought someone told him how to divide by zero.
Then I just realized it was some stuff about how our soldiers apparently killed civilians.
I was like: Okay.
And then the day went on as usual. The sky did not fall.
My point: Wikileaks doesn't do much for the average civilian. Maybe, if you work in the government, and you're part of the machinery that churned out some of the stuff that the website is leaking, then you might be concerned. But, quite frankly, I really don't give two sh*ts about the stuff they're uncovering.
I am a real american, and I think that what Linday Lohan is doing in rehab is far more interesting than what WikiLeaks and Julian Assange has to say.
Quote:[7:42:05 PM][6:51:36 PM] Igor (Smokey): btw terry
[6:51:48 PM] Terrance Cooper: Ye?
[6:52:00 PM] Igor (Smokey): nothin
[6:52:03 PM] Igor (Smokey): just sayin btw
[6:52:05 PM] Terrance Cooper: <_<
Quote:Johnny_Haas: you shot anti criuse speed rockets!!!
Johnny_Haas: but why????
Johnny_Haas: ??
Johnny_Haas: why you shoot criuse speed rockets?
As far as I know, nothing in the most recent Wikileak has pointed to blatantly illegal actions on the part of any government. What it did do was air out a bunch of dirty laundry that had no business being in the public eye, and serves no good purpose to anyone except for journalists who get a juicy story to follow. This is no better than an invasion of privacy.
The only impact it might have is in stirring the pot in the Mideast even more - Arab leaders with a publicly 'moderate' stance on Iran are revealed to have asked the US and Israelis (of all people) to take out Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. I thought that was pretty funny, all things considered...
' Wrote:So how do you know what you are printing is the truth?
This is why in the United States and other countries, we have journalists, and those journalists are given rights to look into things like this, but also the responsibility to verify their sources and information. There is a reason we have journalists, they have a place in society, and a role to play, its why they are there.
Zelot... im so flabbergasted I dont even know where to start.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. And so that said, i should leave it at that.
However, putting up standards of journalistic integrity and thoroughness up in respect to the US when almost 50% of the population in 2003 believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and when you have a large portion of the population that believes Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and FOX news are "news"..... and on the other side of the spectrum, a whole bunch of people say they get their news from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.......
The media in the US, and to be fair, a couple of other western nations that have been involved in the USA's dodgy wars have been asleep, they are still asleep. Look at the questions George W Bush was asked in his recent "book tour".... that guy should have been shredded alive by questioners given his record, and yet what did we get? "Fishing stories and Kanye West..."
This is why wikileaks has a place amongst other reasons. One of my fav' political Pundits from the US to listen to is a fella by the name of Dan Carlin, his quote "We wouldn't need wikileaks if the media was doing its job". Which i paraphrased in my original quote.
The "he's wanted for rape" thing.... ok, fair enough if its all that black and white? You make a fait accompli about Julian Assange wanting all the camera time... now that he is "wanted" he suddenly doesn't. Lemme give you another Fait Accompli to consider:
* Guy embarrasses multiple nations. Guy makes worlds biggest superpower look bad. Guy brings to the public's attention a whole lot of stuff world's biggest superpower would wish public didn't know.(ie, worlds biggest superpower breaking multiple international laws, being complicit in other nations breaking international laws, and in the latest release: a secretary of state ordering her diplomats to break international law.)
*Guy is suddenly wanted on a "rape and molestation" charge.
Yeah huh..... sure, it can go to court, but considering the Swedes themselves have changed tack on this on a number of occasions, and given the context - when you have idiots like Sarah Palin making out like this guy is as dangerous as Al Qaida... then... yes, its conceivable that the "rape" charge might not be the black and white picture that's being painted no?
Of course there is a need for secrecy in some cases. HoweverI find it interesting that in the previous releases of documents, wikileaks contacted the US, told them what they had and said "please tell us any names that you believe should be removed", the US refused, yet that said, Assange himself has said that it is yet to be shown that one person has been harmed as a result of the documents they have released.
Of course those who keep secrets want the secrets kept.... they do not want people to know what they do behind closed doors, the people must not know, the people must be kept in the dark, the people must vote, but have no clue as to what they are voting for.
There is a real need for whistleblowers in society, now more than ever - Daniel Ellesberg, the whistleblower who released the Pentagon papers (wikileaks before there was wikileaks) came out recently and eloquated why he also believed what wikileaks is doing is a good thing. We need more accountability in government, not less. This is i know, a grey area in that different people believe this to be true to different extents, however in our current political climate, where our media is no longer working, is no longer asking the questions.....