"Why has the public had to wait for WikiLeaks to find out how great power really operates?"

Are you serious Mr Pliger. I think a lot of people know just how power operates, although many of your fans may live in a world of make believe about how nice the world be if only we did this and that.

Yes, I have no problem with wikileaks, but I also understand why certain governments may wish to avoid such leaks in the future.

<< a lot of people know just how power operates ... >>

That may be so Chris Lewis but there is an argument that there are vastly more people that don't. The world is full of people who just don't know, don't want to know, bury their head in the sand, or like you say ... live in fantasy land.

Whether these are Pilger's fans or not has got absolutely nothing to do with it.

I don't have a problem with Wikileaks either, but security issues will be problematic. You raised the point - How should "certain governments avoid such leaks in the future"? Simpler said than done, obviously.

Fareed Zakaria, writing in the latest edition of Time Magazine, criticised the "new" data-sharing craze adopted by the U.S. government.
He says: "The leaks are in some ways an unintended consequence of Washington's finally getting its information act together."
He points out that the 9/11 commission exposed the fact that various government department computer systems were unable to share data.
Zakaria writes: "Well, the government solved that problem, allowing Defence Department computers to reach into foreign service's cable traffic."
Sounds like the U.S. government was the architect of its own porous security.

Why wars are not reported "Honestly" ? ? ?

Hmmmm maybe...just MAYBE, because of how

a)Truth is the first casualty of war
b)There IS no "honest" reporting of wars.
c)The Left, of which Pillage is a big part, used the media in a disgraceful and dishonest way, to win the Vietnam war...and shame the USA.

So.. PUH-LEASE don't insult our intelligence by calling on Honesty in reporting...I've READ a book of yours John!

The clear implication of Pillage's position is that he..."HE" will always report "honestly"....

yeah right... we've heard that one longggggg ago.

Dear Al,
Re: Truth being the first casualty of war.
I read this line somewhere recently in connection with Wikileaks...but it struck a chord...
Wouldn't it be good if "War was the first casualty of Truth."

Vietnam was a demonstration of what happens when the media are not given direction in a war. This dose not have to mean that the media is manipulated rather like children if you keep them occupied they tend not to cause trouble.
Government all around the world seem to have learned this lesson, inbedding of the media with combat units gives them a view of the action from a disciplined perspective. A well adjusted and well lead unit will give the media more than enough news to keep them busy and on side.
I don't believe for a minute that the general population don't know what is really going on in war, they simply don't care. It is in the interests of national security that we destroy iraq and afghanistan so that the general population can be kept safe from the truth.

Okay I understand and accept that many people have not paid much attention to the news and just got on with their daily lives. With the emergence of wikileaks many people are able to have access to information about what is going on. Thing is many people do not have the inkling or the understanding of the implications of what has come about and will possible choose the status quo. Most do not want a war in their own backyards, most are happy to have in their minds their country defended even if this is not actually the case. Most people want to just get on with life.
Maybe wars are not being reported honestly because honesty can have many definitions to some people. WW2 bought wars in to peoples backyards in the western countries so they wanted to do something about it. Now most of the wars are in middle eastern countries or far away countries from the western world. All they know of is terrorism which people go yeah go to war defend us now let me get back to my life.

Maybe wikileaks will help some people realise what is going on maybe people will just become immune to it and like I said stick with the status quo.

Dear John, it is not just wars that are not being honestly dealt with by the media, so why not be a little more inclusive? The media are now mainly a bunch of news release junkies who rely on “officials” to give them their “opinions”.

The media is no longer either honorable or professional because they have “agenda’s. Once a journalist has an agenda they are finished. Does John Pilger have and agenda?

Wikileaks will be well contained by diplomats and I doubt that anything too significant will emerge to cause other than embarrassment. The media on the other hand, are the ones with most fear. I support Mr. Assange and hope he gets to release all 250,000 cables, most of which we can reasonably expect will cover every conceivable topic, many of these will have been the subject of a “news item” and an “opinion” from the media.

Its going to be just like the “My School” website, perhaps we could call it “My honest John Journalist” website?

I find it interesting that so many media personalities are currently squawking about journalistic integrity at the moment. Do the media know something we don’t?

We already know about media collusion and incompetence, so why tell us about it? Don’t you have your own channels and professional bodies to which you can refer this corruption?

If not I guess you’ll just have to be a “whistleblower”.

Good luck and keep your head down.

Wars have never been reported honestly - full stop.

Once upon a time they were almost considered to be a "boys own adventure" whereby one could have a bit of a lark and get to see foreign countries. Witness all the naive young men who happily volunteered to join up for the sake of the Mother Country and the Empire. And who were thus slaughtered in their tens of thousands in the trenchs of Europe during WWI.

It is only now, and beginning with the American war against the people of Vietnam, which was the first war that could be observed every night on TV, that there is even the possibility of such occurring. Only the possibility.

I am sure the people in the former Soviet Union did not get to see what was happening in Afghanistan on Russian TV. Or in Georgia/Chechnya in more recent times.

And what about the murderous activities of the charming outfit which is the subject of this site:

http://www.soaw.org

Of course, in our dreadful sanity, we could all choose to watch the Shock and Awe assault on Iraq - in full colour too! But of course we could not see the blood and guts or smithereened bodies, or the screams of terror of the the victims of this Shock and Awe.

Or the now devastated state of Iraq altogether in December 2010.

We all know that in the case of Iraq there was very tight censorship as to what could be "officially" reported by the officially approved embedded "journalists".

The way things are going we might even get to see the beginning of the ultimate holocaust, or meltdown of civilization altogether, on our TV screens too. Until some one pulls the plug on, or deliberately destroys our power supply, or deliberately shuts down the system.

Okay I would like to know if they were what would happen?

Not much I do not think there is anyone who is blinded by their governments and fully believe everything that is said about things like this. Why not ask the question why do people join the defence forces?

I can only talk for myself that it was out of wanting to do something for my country, out of job security and at a time jobs and training was a little hard to get. It was not to fight in a war, or defend from a enemy. I am aware that some people have joined for those reasons but this is really the question more so than why are wars not being reported honestly

Yes Poirot, nasty governments ! Bad governments !

After all, the options in, say, Afghanistan are:

* the Yanks continue the war against the Islamists;

* the Taliban take over the country and make it a have nfor Islamists;

* peace.

Now if only we could somehow work up that third option ......

Perhaps Mr Bilger has some positive suggestions - in addition to cheap and easy, populist gripes ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

Whatever a government represents, it's basic logic that if you want to protect classified information then you make sure your internal security systems are rock solid.

Yes indeed, Poirot, and since we are assuming that governments' -particularly the US government's - internal security systems are NOT rock solid, what have we learnt from the Wikileaks so far ? What Machiavellian, devious, lying schemes of the US have been uncovered ? What bullying of weaker countries have the leaks uncovered ? What plotting and planning t oinvade have we learnt about ?

Isn't it actually amazing that - so far - so LITTLE of what we on the Left have always believed about the Evil Empire has come to pass ? That the Yanks are as blunt with incompetent and corrput governments as we might expect them, in a dirty world where all of us, Yanks, us, everybody, has to come down more or less on one side or the other, in a multitude of situation, and every day ?

I'm waiting for the leaks of Russian and Chinese material: then we might see who leans on whom, who double-crosses whom, who lies to whom.

But of course, if Assange leaked any Chinese material, and ever got extradited there, do you think he might get eleven years, or perhaps a bit worse ? Still, it might earn him the Nobel Peace Prize, even posthumously :)

But let's not talk about Liu Xiao Bo, he's not attacking America.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Yes, indeed - but it does beg the question as to why certain echelons of the U.S. ruling elite appear to be having the heebeejeebees over Wikileaks to the extent they are?

Yes, Poirot:

'A FAIR TRIAL FOR ASSANGE ! A FAIR TRIAL FOR LIU XIAO BO !'

That would fit nicely on a poster.

What's sauce for the goose ....

Dear Poirot....

you say:

Wouldn't it be good if "War was the first casualty of Truth."

haha :) YESSssssss...now that WOULD be something.

Unnnnfortunately..those peddling 'truth' are usually motivated by other agenda's and they all seem to end badly for freedom.

Orwells 1984 Remember the Ministry of Truth ?

Me-thinks AlGoreIsRich works for the "ministry of truth". Most of what he says is either just plain ignorant or full of double-speak.

not at all hohum;

AGIR is arguing from an alternative perspective to yours, and it seems to me that is the basis of your belittling him.

also,

Poirot seems for the moment not to care that the second casuality of war might be his standard of living.

Its is extremely naive to pretend that wars aren’t won and lost on the home front. The US military correctly devotes serious attention to explaining its view of events. Its enemies certainly understand the power of the media to sell their story. They rarely miss an opportunity to portray the US in the worst possible light. Its simply a fact of life in modern conflict. And it bears out the truth that war is politics by other means.

There is a world of difference between lying, and telling the truth as you see it. However, Pilger seems to consider the two things to be the same. Clearly Pilger is one of the few good guys who would never manipulate the facts to fit his story. Or Not.

His whole argument is devoid of any intellectual honesty. He puts his own spin on the quotes of his subjects rather than let their words speak for them. He uses Petraues voice to claim that this war of perception (petraeus words) is about “the way the adventure is sold in America”. Clearly not Petraeus words. The intent, of course, is to show that Petraeus is cavalier about the war, a cowboy. Something he is undoubtedly NOT.

He uses this dishonest technique to link the gushing statements of his Venezuelan general (code for a Fascist Warmonger) with the undertaking of the US and its dozens of NATO allies.

The next paragraph he doesn’t even attempt to stay on point. He ignores the fact that he not demonstrated that “gov’t is ensuring journalists collude with rapacious warmakers”. And goes on to claim, again on the flimsiest of flimsy pretexts, that the rapacious warmakers are planning never ending wars and their real enemy is the public.

Pilger claims Public Relations is Propoganda.. “ He seems to believe there is only one truth, and he dispenses it. Which is clearly as good an example of propaganda as you are likely to get. Pilger uses his background as a journalist, not to uncover truth, but to promote his own extremist worldview, where the good guys red hats.