well, I probably should have made it clearer that the celebrity jeopardy thing was playing a major role. I donate some money to some charities each year, none of which goes to Wikileaks. They are one of the more controversial charities that I would support, I guess, so I would like saying their name on the teevee. Thinking about it more, maybe I would say the freedom from religion foundation.
again, the charities I actually donate to do not include wikileaks. The celebrity jeopardy part was pretty relevant. That said, wikileaks does a necessary good that no one else does. No other charity can really say that.
If wikileaks were leaking actual secret information, rather than just pointing out that most officially secret information isn't actually secret, that would be a bit more useful.
Well, it is secret. As in, classified as secret. I'm not sure what you mean that most "officially secret" information isn't actually secret. Some of what was released had been reported previously. In that case, the various wikileaks dumps confirm this, which is useful, but perhaps not vital. In other cases, what was released had not been reported previously. In that case, they are leaking actual secret information, which is very, very useful. In still other cases, they have material that can serve to viscerally display the horrors of war, and leak actual secret information, as in the helicopter shooting video from a while ago. That type of material can serve the same type of purpose as the Abu Ghraib pictures did (although, again, that was also already reported in some sense or the other). This is vital.
Most of it is secret versions of public information. The best example, I think, is Ambassador Burns' color piece on Dagestani weddings. He's an excellent and observant writer, the piece could have been in National Geographic. You can imagine the photos that would accompany it.
But that's the problem: it could have been a National Geographic article. This information isn't "secret" in any important sense, it's just a hidden copy of a public narrative. Likewise, a lot of the cables have a news analysis feel to them; they incorporate different sources, but they're just secret copies of what most of us could have read in Foreign Policy or Affairs.
Well, yes, a lot of it is stuff that you could see as being awesome public information. But, of course, it wasn't, so it is good that it is now in the open. Again, that piece was very well written, and should be read. But it is only available because of wikileaks. I am not sure how your observation takes away from the value of the leaks ...
And, again, yes, much of the information confirms what you would get from reading various publications. But, 1) that serves to confirm that information, which is a definite good, and 2) a lot else from the leaks was not widely known, so learning that is great. So, again, I'm left with wikileaks being awesome.
Comments 18
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
But that's the problem: it could have been a National Geographic article. This information isn't "secret" in any important sense, it's just a hidden copy of a public narrative. Likewise, a lot of the cables have a news analysis feel to them; they incorporate different sources, but they're just secret copies of what most of us could have read in Foreign Policy or Affairs.
Reply
And, again, yes, much of the information confirms what you would get from reading various publications. But, 1) that serves to confirm that information, which is a definite good, and 2) a lot else from the leaks was not widely known, so learning that is great. So, again, I'm left with wikileaks being awesome.
Reply
Leave a comment