Jennifer you make some valid points.
It is only now that the media and to a lesser extent political parties are catching up with other more astute and courageous commentators.
The collective inability of the media to put the heat on Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott is staggering to say the least. Reporting on mining, climate change and water appears beyond them.
Having said that, I was on The Drum on 7 December and made many of the points you claim have been lacking from the program, particularly relating to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Other guests were Monica Attard and Chris Berg. The producers and Steve Canaan seemed relaxed with my presentation.
I do not get the impression that the ABC has any agenda other than that recently articulated by the Managing Director that in order to secure funding you have to be able to give what the government wants.
If you have not already seen the Drum program of 7th Decenber I urge you to watch it.
Bruce Haigh

Here is a link to Scott Burchall's piece today in the Drum, looking at the possible psychological reasons why MSM have failed to adequately cover the Wikileaks story.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42176.html

JenniferWilson

Thanks Bruce, I did see it and I heaved a sigh of relief.

As Scott Burchell's article today in the Drum acknowledges, there have been some brave outspoken commentators.

Nevertheless, overall it's been a bit of a shocker..

As you point out, to secure government funding you have to be able to give what the government wants.

I guess Mark Scott said everything when he made that observation.

Jennifer.

Jennifer,

Thanks for the article.
I'm also interested in the kind of rhetoric employed by the media on this issue - and its use as a subliminal tool. For my mind, the commentary seems to be all over the place - as if the mainstream media is attempting to come to terms with a (perhaps) permanent shift in the rules of the game. We'll have to stay tuned for that one.

I also note that the Drum site hosted the open letter to Julia Gillard.

I realise I ought to have acknowledged in my article that the Drum has presented and continues to present well-argued points of view that are supportive to Assange and Wikileaks.

The problem is, when something oppositional appears, it is inevitably built around character assassination of one kind or another. I object to the ABC offering this as balanced reporting. It isn't balanced reporting. It's character assassination.

The ABC's chief online political reporter needs to lead with un-baised, serious attention to the Wikileaks story. If the CPR can't be bothered to take a serious look at it, it implies it's not of much consequence to the Drum.

Jennifer
Thanks for your article, it is useful for us who are not completely in the media loop.
But MSM? wtf!

Re narcissism & megalomania: to which media moguls could these descriptors not be applied?
Dan

I recall the comment by Marian Dalton on 9th December, both in The DRUM and Online Opinion and among my comments was the following, "The point I think that the world is making. Marian, including Judges in case you are not aware, is that he has been charged, no bail, he is being called a terrorist by the extremist US politicians and finally, that he didn't actually steal the documents".

That article, by the way attracted 60 + comments which must be something of a record for Online Opinion.....

But back to the ABC. There is something going to in that organisation that is somewhat disquieting which may add to your concerns, not just in relation to the many examples of flippancy bordering on rudeness, disrespect and unprofessionalism being displayed in these panel episodes, but overall. There seems to be a level of arrogance, almost disdain which I have never noticed before and I am a exclusive ABC viewer.

We see a public organisation now with radio channels to burn and four TV networks, four. Why? How many repeat programs can you get away with, low quality cooking programs which cost them nothing, as well as fourth rate no-value British failures, always able to get a run on 'My ABC'. They are stretched and it shows!
It is primarily a management decision, or so it seems. to become a commercial broadcaster, lots of glitz, pathetic image advertisements, repeat programs, ad nauseum. They seem to have developed bias and poor quality journalism and the examples you have given are correct. They appear to be acting as though they were the reason that people had tuned in, they were the entertainment, the news item or discussion points being there just for their own amusement.

The greatest number of people that watch the ABC do so because of what it used to be and do not like what they see any more. The examples you gave of the denigration of Julian Assange on the 8th were an absolute disgrace.

Thank you for reminding us all of the unprofessionalism of Ms Crabb and Co.

You implied that, in my article, I deliberately conflated hypothetical and reality - further, that I might well be underestimating my readers by assuming they could not see that.

Here's the quote: 'But wait a minute - whatever people think of this specific law, look at the hypothetical situation being described. One partner has withdrawn consent for whatever reason. Most rape laws in the Western world would agree that at this point, the sex is no longer consensual.

Sounds like sexual assault in my book. With the added risk of a sexually-transmitted infection like chlamydia or HIV.'

I posited a hypothetical situation - the commission of a sexual assault in which one person might be exposed to an STI because the other did not wear a condom, and explained why that was an additional risk. This was to answer those who sought to trivialise such a situation.

Nothing about Assange's specific situation there. No implication that I suggested he had infected either of the complainants. You did that.

I believe Assange deserves a fair trial. I also believe his complainants deserve fair dealing by the media. Finally, I believe Wikileaks should not be conflated with this situation - by anyone.

Jennifer, interesting article. It raises some potentially devastating possibilities, not just for the ABC, but for the MSM, the commentariat, academia and politicians.

All the forms of “shoot the messenger” you have described are widely used by all of the above in relation to many topics globally.

Wikileaks has brought into focus the evidence that much of our media no longer offers journalism, just news bites and opinion. The ABC has been criticized from its own management of “group think”, no doubt that other media outlets embrace similar cultures.

I disagree with Bruce Haig’s impression that the ABC has any agenda other than to give the government what it wants. This seems to be an excuse for any perceived lack of independence or skeptical journalism.

If I were one such journalist I would be terrified at the prospect of Wikileaks demonstrating to the public that I had failed to critically question significant issues, formed a biased or prejudicial opinion and because of this, had consistently presented a one sided perspective.

If I were to think of the biggest, potentially most damaging, to more people world wide, covering the broadest spectrum of respected and influential people, it would be one of the topics referred to by Bruce Haigh, climate change.

Just imagine that (if) some of the diplomatic exchanges released by Wikileaks cover climate change and are contrary perspectives to the orthodoxy not shared by the media with the public?

There are now thousands of news items on this topic that are not getting into MSM or Public Broadcasters, even when they do we see all the classic “shoot the messenger” tactics you identified. What wonderful irony?

Perhaps Annabel Crabb could start preparing for the 13th Day of Christmas?

On the 13th day of Christmas, Wikileaks gave to me; Twelve won’t sign the treaty, the CRU is leaking, the warming data’s tweaking, Phil Jones’ data’s missing, Tree ring proxies listing, hockey sticks are straightening, feedback loops a loser, Sunspots looking hotter, Pollies looking paler, Yanks take legal action, the EAU is closing and the whole thing is diplo-mac-y

Ms Dalton

I find your defense disingenuous.

In the middle of an article entirely about Julian Assange, you decide to take the opportunity to educate your readers on the dangers of unprotected sex, using as a "hypothetical" example the exact set of circumstances as those allegedly engaged in by Assange himself.

The quote you give as example is of course selected. The section from which you isolate it discussed both a "hypothetical" situation, and goes on to discuss the four other "charges" against Assange, as follows:

**Sounds like sexual assault in my book. With the added risk of a sexually-transmitted infection like chlamydia or HIV.

And we’re not just talking about this law, either. There are four charges, and the full details are not known. There’s a lot of speculation and embroidery going on, based on an article published in the Daily Mail and some comments published by one of the alleged victims in the past. British media now report that the charges include forcing one woman’s legs apart to have sex with her, and taking advantage of the other’s sleeping state to have sex without her consent. It’s the “condom law” that gets the attention, though, and so it’s easy for people to dismiss the whole idea as ridiculous.**

You have certainly added to the speculation and embroidery by introducing the possibility of std infections. Even **hypothetically.**

I would suggest as well, that if you are specifically describing the sexual allegations, you ought to do better than offer your readers the **British media** as a primary source.

I will also take this opportunity to point out that there are no charges against Assange at this stage. There are allegations. There is a great deal of difference, as a journalist should take the trouble to find out, especially a journalist who claims to be calling for fairness and justice. You are being neither fair nor just in perpetuating the falsehood that Assange has been "charged."
Jennifer Wilson.

Yes a good article Jennifer and nothing much left to add.

The Assange-media relationship is becoming a parody of itself without much serious discussion about the implications for governance and accountability. Once again the drama of the story overides the content.

It is interesting that part of this demonisation process involves comparing Assange supporters as 'disciples' - the latter being utilised as a tool to diminish the value of the document release. It is done with any controversial topic from climate change, free trade, evolution vs Christianity and now disclosure and freedom of information.

The tactics used to diminish Assange and Wikileaks is very similar to that of whistleblowers. The shoot the messenger approach is not altogehter unsurprising - Wilkie and Kessing both experienced negative pronouncements on their character and emotional/mental wellbeing.

The document release concerning the banking sector is long overdue - please hurry Wikileaks and get it out there.

Wilson contends that Assange is not an anarchist.

Assange quoting Gustav Landauer “The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another….We are the state, and we shall continue to be the state until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men."A writer he often quotes.

Wilson says he is a whistleblower, yet offesr no refutation to the claim Assange has an active and ongoing political agenda. In fact, Assange seeks to fundamentally weaken the US and its allies by reducing open information flow and increasing distrust. He is in the business of regime change. Whistleblowers, by their very nature are internal to the organisation they are outing. Not a description that covers Assange.

In his own words “To radically shift regime behaviour we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.

Wilson denies megalomania, yet I wonder how she explains the model pose photographs of himself which he has so conspicuously planted. And how do you explain his desertion of Private Manning, who has received a mere 20,000 dollars for a legal defence from the millions donated to Assange and wikileaks.

Wilson claims to be upset that the mainstream media is dismissing wikileaks newest round of leaks as unremarkable, Yet neglects to point to even a single leak which substantially disproves this description.

This is because the vast majority of cables are NOT particularly edifying. There are no great conspiracies uncovered, or lies exposed. There is no gulf of Tonkin comparison, no matter how often the pentagon papers are mentioned in order to legitimize by association, Assange’s behaviour.

Assange seeks to bleed the US with a thousand cuts. Not for the purposes of greater truth, but in pursuit of "social justice". A clearly political goal.

PaulL, when you say that vast majority of the “cables are NOT particularly edifying”. You may well be right however, might I suggest you add the rider, so far! And don’t forget, we do not have to share any agenda Assange might have to get public value from his revelations.

We are dealing with the reactions of the MSM, public broadcasters, politicians and general commentariat to Wikileaks.

Jennifer Wilsons’ article raises the valid point, why are we getting this reaction?

If this is the reaction to “not particularly edifying” content, why the paranoid reaction?

Nothing to see here folks, move right along please!

Could it be, just a suggestion, only an idea of course, nothing concrete, just asking a silly question?

What if the people who actually sent these cables know what was in them? Ridiculous I know, anyway they wouldn’t have kept copies would they?

Anyway I don’t suppose they are furiously going through every cable to see what “might” come up in the next release so they are fully prepared with excuses, sorry mitigation, sorry reasons, no, just a simple explanation that we will all love and understand?

What if those who know they are on flaky ground, have possibly, dare I say it “misled” the public, or might just have something to hide from the public in relation to incompetence, duplicity, censorship, failure of public duty, bias or prejudice?

The reactions so far might less to do with “not particularly edifying” and more to do with OMG what if “this” gets out?

One could suggest that only those with something to hide would react this way. Silly I know.

Jennifer Wilson is asking a very valid question, “Exactly what narrative is the ABC working to produce about Wikileaks?

The same question must be asked of the many others who are trying to shoot the messenger. Thanks to Jennifer’s observations we can clearly identify those who have something to hide.

Jennifer, can I suggest your next article covers possible motivation?

I just Luuuuuve serious journalists, Juicy, yes?

As a brief aside for those who doubt the 'killing' mentality of some of those on the Conservative Far Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKnw-V5fjBI

More evidence that truth is often stranger than fiction and it is this mentality that often shapes foreign policy.

Should add that Brett Solomon was probably not the best person to interview on this topic but so far GetUp has raised $350K as part of the Wikileaks campaign including an Ad in the New York Times; and collected 90,000 signatures.

Gotta love the bit where the American woman states that the idea of "stopping governments from lying to their citizens" is juvenile.

PaulL

Landauer isn't calling for the abolition of the state. He calls for a re-organisation of relationships within the state, but he seeks to maintain the state.

Assange is in the business of regime change.
Regime change is just that, change. A regime remains in place, its just a differently organised regime.

Assange's position is internal to the structure of the global politic. The USA is a key player in the structure of the global politic. Therefore Assange is a whistleblower. On a global scale.

I don't accept you premise that Assange has deserted Manning. There is nothing anybody can do for Manning now. Wikileaks did everything possible to protect him. Manning allegedly revealed his actions to a fellow soldier, who shopped him.

Do you argue that there is no correlation between social justice and the greater "truth?" Because I can't agree with that, though it is far too big a subject to address here.

America is indeed bleeding from a thousand cuts. But these are the consequences of self harm. America is bleeding from the inside. I go to the US twice a year, and each time I can see how much worse things are becoming there. But this is nothing to do with Assange, or any outside influence.

Spindoc - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42176.html

Great article yesterday on the psychological motivations.

You can judge a person's true position by the PROTESTERS who support him or her.

Hard core left wingers seem to be supporting Assange... that must tell you something.

This is just part of a much bigger....longer term program of seeking a 'surrogate for the working class' to use as a divisive/hegelian dialectic issue and forment revolution.

Max Horkheimer said it in the 1930s as head of the Frankfurt school.
Now.. wikileaks is just a small player, but an important one.

Dear Al,

Did you happen to catch Judge Andrew Napolitano on Glenn Beck's show recently. Much to his host's chagrin, the judge came down heavily in favour of and applauded the exposure of the truth. He attacked the U.S. government, saying that it had behaved reprehensibly by intimidating the vendors who did business with Wikileaks, adding that such engagement was prohibited by the constitution.
Would you consider Fox News' regular legal guru as a rabid left-winger?

Spindoc,

It should be obvious that there are significant political ramifications for the US and its allies from these leaks. An indelicate remark, made in private, perhaps even in jest, can derail the career of even the most promising of politicians. This is a sad fact of the 24 hour news cycle. Substance has been replaced by volume as a measure of news significance.

The American gov’t will be embarrassed by many of the things that wikileaks reveals. But the level of embarrassment is NOT a measure of the public interest. Exposed lies would be in the public interest. But how is exposing cables which describe Silvio Berlusconi as vain and feckless in the public interest? Especially when you could find such an opinion in just about any reputable broadsheet. The real effect is to sabotage the relationship between the US and the host country.

You say “What if those who know they are on flaky ground, have possibly, dare I say it “misled” the public,”

Firstly, all of the wikileaks cables will come out. Thats undeniable. So the idea that they are reacting ,in any manner ,in order to suppress the leaks is specious,.

Secondly there has not yet been such an example that I am aware of. No one here seems to be posting these purported “lies”. And I simply cannot believe that Assange wouldn’t lead with the best material.

The suggestion that the ABC is working to a single right wing narrative is also preposterous and smacks of paranoia. The ABC has a decidedly leftist lean even if it is not as pronounced as it used to be.

Briar Rose,

“The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behavior; we DESTROY it by contracting other relationships,”

Your claim that Landauer is not calling for the Abolition of the state is fallacious. He is calling for the “destruction” of the state as we know it, to reorder it in an anarchist image. Thats anarchism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Landauer

Regime change, as I’m sure your aware, is part of the popular lexicon and is usually used in place of coup or revolution. Working towards the removal of a political organisation which Assange does not approve of (even a democratic one) is regime change and is a political act. Assange has a political agenda that makes a mockery of the claims that he is encouraging greater transparency.

You say “ Assange's position is internal to the structure of the global politic.” What?? So if Ahmedinejhad tells us that Israel is not complying with UN resolutions, he’s a whistleblower too? Nonsense. Manning might conceivably be a whistleblower as he was actually within the system he exposed, but he is a disturbed individual and his motivations are clearly personal.

Sadly, what the left is missing is that these leaks are going to hurt Obama way more than the Republicans. They can simply ignore the fallout or even use it against him. It is clear that these leaks may do enough damage to the President politically that the Republicans are able to repeal Obama’s medicare reforms.

PaulL - Landauer may indeed be calling for anarchy but Assange is not. He is calling for transparent government. This is of course a "political agenda."

Sometimes I quote Freud or Karl Marx - and I'm neither a Freudian nor a Marxist.

Some times I've quoted Jesus and I'm not a Christian.

The thing about all interesting and long lasting texts is that they contain profound comments that are not confined by the overall ideology they espouse.

Assange isn't a country's leader telling somebody something about another power - he's a media player,releasing a quarter of a million cables passed to him by the man who downloaded them.

I have yet to see proof that Assange is working towards the removal of any government. I see evidence so far that his agenda is transparency. I think he is savvy enough to know that all governments are secretive, and I don't think he's interested in replacing one secretive regime with another.

It's too soon for me to decide about Assange's deepest motives - I prefer to see what unfolds.

I have thought at times over the last few days that people are perhaps attributing far too many and too complex motives to him. We shall see.

These leaks have nothing at all to do with the possible repeal of Obama's health reforms. That was on the cards long before Wikileaks.

Neither does Wikileaks have the slightest thing to do with the pressure on Obama to continue tax cuts for the wealthy.

Briar Rose,

two quotes

" let us consider two closely balanced and broadly conspiratorial power groupings, the US Democratic and Republican parties. Consider what would happen if one of these parties gave up their mobile phones, fax and email correspondence — let alone the computer systems which manage their subscribes, donors, budgets, polling, call centres and direct mail campaigns? They would immediately fall into an organizational stupor and lose to the other. ... An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think is powerless to preserve itself against the opponents it induces .. "

"To deal with powerful conspiratorial actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them sincethe actions themselves can not be dealt with.We can deceive or blind a conspiracy by distorting or restricting the informationavailable to it."
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

Julian Assange in his own words is telling you that the Democratic and Republican parties are conspiracies which we need to defeat. Assange doesn't want to promote freedom of information within the current system. He wants to overthrow the current system.

PaulL,

One quote (Assange - Time Magazine):

"....Since 2006 we have been working along this philosophy: organisations which are abusive...need to be in the public eye. They then have one of two choices: One is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavours and proud to display them to the public. The other is to lock down internally and to balkanise and as a result cease to be as efficient as they were. To me that is a very good outcome, because organisations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient."

PaulL
Overthrowing the current system does not equate with anarchy.

If this is the case, the Coalition of the Willing undertook anarchist action when they invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam.

Call me unimaginative, but I just don't get Bush Howard and Blair as anarchists.

Anarchy calls for the abolition of all systems of government and state control, and advocates individual responsibility instead.

According to one website the UK has about 300 gag orders on media and I think much of the self-censorship comes purely from a survival instinct (fear) both at the commercial level in jeopardising some of those scratch-back arrangements.

A spokesman from Wikileaks once said (it may have been Assange) that: “We’re the canary in the coal mine because we take the hardest publishing cases.”

Wikileaks is unique in pushing those boundaries to 'go where other media are afraid to go'. The information, once revealed, provides some form of safety net for the wary mainstream media to then follow-up on detail and commentary.

The greater the distance between governments and their people the more organisations like Wikileaks are needed to correct the balance and return us back to a real peoples government.

The real anarchists are those that work to radically reduce the principles of democracy and reduce the government to an oligarchy.

And that should be a concern for people on both the Left and Right of politics.

Poirot,

Firstly, I think its more instructive to listen to what Assange says when he thinks no one is listening, ie his old blogs, than what he is saying in the mainstream media. Secondly, it is clear from a reading of both your quotes and mine, that the second outcome is his actual goal.

Briar Rose,

Its specious that you would even attempt to suggest that I made this claim. I never said “ he wants to overthrow our system – therefore he’s an anarchist.

My point was this, If

1) your thematic quote at the top of your essay is a revered anarchist explaining his opinion on what society should look like http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/iq.org/

2) in this essay you go into how you can overthrow the conspirators.

Then its a good bet that you’re a revolutionary of some type. And anarchist would be the obvious choice.

If his goal (however unlikely) is to participate in or encourage the overthrow of our established system of governance, then he can no longer be considered a whistleblower.

Pelican,

Virtually the sole reason anyone knows anything about the wikileaks cables is because of the established media. Without them, wikileaks would just be another conspiracy/far left website that only true believers would know about

I challenge you to produce one of these cables which has significant public interest value, that the mainstream media is not reporting. Or do you think they are all of vital interest and all 250,000 odd cables should have their own front page news stories?

So, real anarchism is working towards oligarchy, is it? Sorry, wouldn’t that be oligarchism? Or facism?

Jennifer,

I agree with much you say in your message but find it a little disconcerting to have scientology.org ad's flashing up in the middle of it.

Why is scientology.org advertising on onlineopinion.org?

PaulL, in his post of Tuesday, 14 December 2010 at 10:52:53 PM says:

"Wilson claims to be upset that the mainstream media
is dismissing wikileaks newest round of leaks as
unremarkable, Yet neglects to point to even a single
leak which substantially disproves this description."

I don't know as to whether Jennifer Wilson (who has been engaging in this discussion as OLO userID 'briar rose') could have pointed to this leak, but I contend that it could be one such that disproves the description of the leaks as 'unremarkable": http://bit.ly/fryQuN . It is a shortened link to an item by Patricia Karvelas published in The Australian on December 17, 2010 at 12:00AM, titled "Julia Gillard 'after top job a year before coup'".




So why should this leak be considered remarkable?




At this point my observations will probably appear to become somewhat tangential to the discussion, but I suggest they may ultimately come to be seen as interestingly relevant to understanding the 'shoot the messenger' line taken in respect to Assange and WikiLeaks.



Jennifer Wilson wrote an article titled 'Moving forward, trust me' which was published on OLO on Thursday, 22 July 2010. She opened with the statement:

"The term “moving forward” is employed by politicians
when they’ve done something they don’t want to dwell
on for any number of reasons, usually because they fear
close examination will put them in a bad light. ... "

The sixth paragraph of that article began:

"What the Rudd downfall shows is that the people
of Australia are not in control of who will be
the Prime Minister, ... "

The interesting thing we learn from The Australian's news item is that:

"A WikiLeaks cable names Senator Farrell
as telling US embassy staff in June last
year Ms Gillard was trying to knock off
Mr Rudd.

"Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker
from South Australia, told us Gillard is
'campaigning for the leadership' and at this
point is the frontrunner to succeed Rudd,
conceding that the Right did not yet have an
alternative," the cable states."




TBC

PaulL
I am not sure what your point is. I clearly stated the mainstream media is reporting on the Wikileaks information. The mainstream media gives commentary and opinion about the information too depending on their point of view. All good in a democracy.

I have also clearly stated that much of the information is not news, other than in detail and has been reported prior to the leaks eg. in particular in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq/WMDs. Although the building of an underground nuclear facility in Burma was something I don't think I have read about prior.

As far as whether all the cables should be given front page features is not for me or you to decide. The information is on the site should anyone want to read it and comment on it in a society that values free speech and thought.

My reference to gag orders is that Wikileaks does not suffer the same disabling influences nor does it have a commercial interest.

PaulL
The cables are accessible to anybody and it is not my task to do this research for people.

Briefly, you really need to consider that what you may or may not understand as significant does not necessarily coincide with the opinions of others, and the desire of others (which may well be different to yours) to be informed on the wide range of topics the cables have thus far covered.

There is also an over-arching consideration: while much of the chatter in individual cables may be of varying importance, it is extremely significant that this chatter is now available to anyone who wants to look at it, along with whatever of importance we have yet to see.

The leak yesterday on the Coalition's desire for an infinite number of boat arrivals does put Abbot's **stop the boat policy in a new light,** to say the least.

Perhaps one of the important things the leaks are revealing is that what we have long suspected, such as the piece I wrote some time ago quoted by Forrest Gump, is indeed true, we now have the evidence, these things are no longer suspicions, and politicians now cannot deny them.

In my book, that's worth a great deal.

You are beginning to sound as if you want some form of censorship, determined by what you consider important or otherwise.

There are many many forms of revolution. I am not going to argue with you any further as to whether not not Assange is an anarchist.
On that we must agree to differ.
Jennifer

GregB
Thank you

I can't help with the Scientology ad, except to say journals like OLO have to survive somehow.
Jennifer.

If I may briefly interrupt my own promised continuity, I would like to add my voice to pelican's in expressing uncertainty as to what PaulL's point is when he says, in his post of Thursday, 16 December at 2010 5:46:31 PM:

"Virtually the sole reason anyone knows anything
about the wikileaks cables is because of the established
media. Without them, wikileaks would just be another
conspiracy/far left website that only true believers
would know about."

Are we talking about this website: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/11/08STOCKHOLM748.html ? This link was posted on the thread of the General Discussion topic 'Sanctuary', here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104817

So far as I can tell, this is a WikiLeaks site, and this specific page appears, or purports, to be a US diplomatic cable. I take my cue from US Senator John McCain's description of these releases as "a serious breach of [US] national security" as being a validation of their content, in general, being genuine. Why would a site publishing cables such as this be described as a conspiracy/far left website? The cables stand on their own acknowledged merit as to whatever they explain or shed light upon.

PaulL goes on to say:

"I challenge you to produce one of these cables
which has significant public interest value,
that the mainstream media is not reporting."

I suspect the very cable that has been linked to may be just such a cable. I am not aware that the MSM has so far reported upon the public interest aspect of this cable, because until the arrest of Assange was followed by the first-ever terrorist attack upon Swedish soil last Saturday, ostensibly by a Swedish citizen of Iraqi origin who had become allegedly 'radicalised' in the UK where he had been living in recent years, this cable may have been perceived to have had no significance. I submit it now does. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104883 and also: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11353#192615

The Drum video for Dec 8 you mention is here: http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/684031

Well, I think your article makes many very valid points.

However, I would have stated it more strongly. It is not enough to simply lose the bias, they need to pro-actively pursue the Government.

Most in the media seem to have forgotten they are The Fourth Estate; it is their role to inform the public about EVERYTHING they know regarding the activities of the various levels of Gov't - those other three estates.

Let me repeat, EVERYTHING!

Their primary purpose is to critically assess EVERYTHING the Government does or is planning to do and relay that information to the public! ALL OF IT!

Instead many reporters have been seduced and are complicit in the Governments misdeeds.

Thank you Jennifer, and also thanks to Antony Loewenstein for retaining your external perspective.

And thank you Julian Assange and Wikileaks for showing how high the bar needs to be raised for the media to truly operate as The Fourth Estate.

Oh, and as to my query about Scientology, I just wanted to be sure it was an advert and not an indication of alignment. Free speech supports their right to advertise but it should be clearly indicated as "not a reflection of the views of OLO". For example, rather than just saying 'advertisement' above the advert window, the expanded disclaimer I've suggested could somehow be included.

Jennifer,

You say it’s not your job to produce the vitally important information that wikileaks has provided the public.

If there was any information that was of vital importance I dare say you would have quoted it. The idea that we need to see 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables to find out that Julia Gillard was gunning for the top job a year ago is ludicrous.

You claimed that the wikileaks were “the most intriguing, and quite possibly the most revolutionary story on the planet at the moment” and claim by implication, that the ABC is covering up this momentous event.

I’ve simply tried to impress upon you the fact that the information released in these documents isn’t of vital interest to the public and won’t be revolutionary, regardless of Assange’s intentions (which you have identified accurately). I've also pointed out that Assange's motivations, which are obvious to any honest person, are derived from his hacker/annarchist philosophy. The three criticisms of Assange (anarchist, narcissist, meglomaniac) assume their importance because of the modest nature of the "revelations" he uncovers.

Any intelligent person knows that the real damage to the US and its allies, isn’t to their political system, it’s to their narrow political interests. This hurts Obama and Gillard’s re-election chances. Not their system of governance, against which Assange (and perhaps you) thinks he’s struck a blow.

You say “ .. you want some form of censorship, determined by what you consider important or otherwise.”

No. I believe that diplomacy requires secrecy at times to be effective. I believe that Manning broke the law and Assange assisted him. That’s not censorship. That’s the rule of law.

You say “it is extremely significant that this chatter is now available to anyone ...”

So are you actually arguing that ALL diplomatic communication should be open and available to everyone, including the people and organisations about whom diplomats are required to report?

Or are you suggesting that there is NO information which the gov’t should ever be able to keep from the public?

PaulL has effectively now clarified a point he seemed to be trying to make earlier in the discussion, a point that was eluding both pelican and I as to its precise nature.




PaulL's post of Saturday, 18 December 2010 at 10:42:57 AM commences with the statement:

"Jennifer,

You say it’s not your job to produce
the vitally important information that
wikileaks has provided the public."

briar rose's (article author Jennifer Wilson's) post of Friday, 17 December 2010 at 1:11:48 PM, to which PaulL was responding, commences with the words:

"PaulL
The cables are accessible to anybody and it
is not my task to do this research for people."




All becomes clear.




PaulL is here seen putting words in the mouth of Jennifer Wilson that she did not use. That amounts to an attempt to control the language of the discussion.

Further evidence as to attempting to control the language of the discussion exists in his setting up of a false dichotomy between the applicability of the term 'whistleblower' and the labeling (pathologising?) term 'anarchist'.

A person can be both of these things at once, and being an anarchist, any more than in a previous era being a communist (for which these days I suspect 'anarchist' is code), is not something that is against the law, certainly not here in Australia. (Australia had a referendum, the Constitution Alteration (Powers to deal with Communists and Communism) Referendum of 22 September 1951, which rejected any such proscription of political freedom, a fact which Australia's PM and Attorney-General each ought to have known only too well before launching into their recent premature condemnation of Assange's activities.)

Let's be clear. If anybody is the whistleblower, albeit that it may be in breach of US law, it is Bradley Manning. Assange did not assist Manning: Assange had no access to this enormous digitised archive of classified information. The most that can be said is, the (US) security breach having occurred, Assange recognised the world-wide public interest aspect of much that was contained therein.

Returning to the continuity from my post of Friday, 17 December 2010 at 7:23:51 AM

The post from which I continue, albeit tangentially, established that one or more of the leaked cables revealed claims that moves were afoot within the ALP as early as June 2009 to replace Kevin Rudd as PM, and that it looked as though Julia Gillard was the front runner.

Bruce Haigh, who was the first poster to this comments thread, posted the following in a first post to a concurrent OLO article ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11376#192748 ) 'WikiLeaks challenges journalism-politics partnership':

"One of the other issues surrounding Arbib
is that he was a 'protected source'. Why?
Arbib needs to be asked the nature of his
relationship with the US embassy and government.
Was he being paid for information? Was he the
recipient of special favours, and here I move
into the relm of speculation, such as the reciept
of useful phone taps through Pine Gap that he
might have been able to use as tools of influence?"

It must be remembered that the term 'protected source' in this context means a source of information PROTECTED BY, AND FOR, THE US! Why would Arbib have needed protection if he was conveying information FROM an Australian political PARTY (note: not from the Australian GOVERNMENT) TO the US embassy? Such might have been a form of betrayal in the party loyalty sense, but hardly a crime.

What if, however, Arbib was conveying co-ordinative information or instructions in the OPPOSITE direction, from the US embassy to influential persons within the ALP, to persons who had had long experience as to the unfailing accuracy of such information with respect to, for example, the prediction of Australian electoral outcomes?

The very existence of such a track record with respect to such predictions would be cause for suspicion as to the existence of a mechanism for actually producing, or influencing, such results to order. If such proved so, we would have moved into the realm of subversion of democracy in independent nations.

TBC

PaulL, you say, << It should be obvious that there are significant political ramifications for the US and its allies from these leaks.>>

Disagree. In fact the only ones to look good against the Wikileaks revelations are the US diplomatic core. Rather than “significant political ramifications” it seems like mild embarrassment, the food upon which diplomats thrive.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that diplomatic cables will cover every conceivable topic; at the moment all we are seeing are those cables that cover predominantly US foreign policy. What will you have to say when the cables start to cover the GFC, EU finance, UN policy and those of its agencies, and possibly climate change just to nominate a few possibilities that may yet shatter your beliefs?

Don’t know where you are going with the comment that I suggested the ABC is “working to a single right wing narrative”? No such conclusions were drawn. There was a “question” as to what “narrative the ABC is working to produce”. This was raised in the article by Jenifer Wilson; we on OLO are trying to answer this question.

It is just possible, that if the Wikileaks does cover the full range of “topics” as anticipated, the MSM and public broadcasters might be the ones feeling the most pain, not the politicians. (See the Weekend Australian for more media analysis on this topic)

Your posts seem to be going off to “planet PaulL” with many of your comments. You seem to be in as much confusion as much of the MSM, thrashing.

There is no doubt you have lots and lots of “information” but you are not converting this into rational thought that we can follow. I’m sure you have something going on between the ears but it really is getting hard to follow

Continued

Now the thing that IMO makes the WikiLeak as to the US having knowledge in June 2009 of a move to replace Rudd with, perhaps, Gillard, in hindsight remarkable, is a little event that happened right here on OLO in October 2009. Then-Deputy-PM Julia Gillard published what, as it turned out, was the vanguard OLO featured topic for October 2009, 'Personal Epiphanies' article, 'Driven by indignation at injustice' (See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9513 ) on 5 October 2009.

I was the first poster to the comments thread of that article, but you will not find that first post to the archived thread if you look today. That post was taken down within an hour of its being posted as the result of a moderation decision made in response to a complaint as to its being off-topic. (I accepted that moderation decision then and now, so for the benefit of those who pay little attention as they read, don't imagine this reference to that event is about arguing a past moderation decision.) This link is to a later post in that thread which explains what transpired more fully: http://bit.ly/gRHgyy

This is a very condensed summary from that linked post as to what the deleted post had been about:

"The deleted post was a non-politically partisan
challenge to the Deputy PM to use her influence
to secure due process at law on behalf of two
believably innocent UK citizens facing the prospect
of extradition without trial or hearing in the UK,
to the US."

From Julia Gillard's point of view as an aspirant to the prime-ministership, the most that post constituted was a challenge to the sincerity with which she claimed to be 'driven by indignation at injustice', one she could have sidestepped if unavoidably confronted with it by saying "sorry, I'm only the Deputy-PM, you'll have to speak to Kevin Rudd about such matters".

To US interests, however, that challenge was all but identical to that posed by the Assange issue today!

TBC

" PaulL is here seen putting words in the mouth of Jennifer Wilson that she did not use."

It all becomes clear does it Forrest? Please do be my guest and split that hair for us. Which words are they?

And I’m attempting to control the discussion. What planet are you on.

You and everybody else have the right to ignore everything I say. I can’t control the discussion any more than I can control when it rains.

In general, we as a society accept that there are times when an organisations legal right to privacy can be set aside in the interests of protecting individuals who are exposing lies within that organisation. We consider that person a whistleblower and we extend them extra protection.

A whistle-blower is someone who exposes an organisation from within. In that respect, Manning could be considered a whistleblower, Assange cannot.

Secondly, If a person acts to expose information in order to damage an organisation in furtherance of their agenda, they are also no longer whistleblowers. A disgruntled former employee, who uses company secrets in order to secure a huge payday, is not a whistleblower.

Finally, if you were never part of an organistation AND wish to do it harm you are clearly not a whistleblower. A liberal party staffer who publishes information that exposes secrets in the labor party is not a whisteblower.

The legality of being an anarchist or not is irrelavnt to the question of whether Assange should be given extra protection, above and beyond what is required by law

Spindoc,

I seem to have conflated Pelican’s claims of bias by the British MSM towards their right/centre coalition, GregB’s claims of a bias towards the local Labor government; with your claims of bias. I apologize. It’s not quite right wing bias, although I’m not sure Assange would agree with you.

You have the temerity to claim that I go off to my own world. Yet you indulge yourself with inane poems expressing your wishful thinking. You have clearly conflated your own desire to see specific outcomes/specific lies uncovered at the expense of a real look at what has been uncovered. Your claims, that MSM is quivering in their boots with the possibility that some monumental lie regarding climate change will be exposed, is a clear example of this.

We should not be surprised. There are plenty of posters on OLO who ascribe to a political philosophy which relies upon wishful thinking and make-believe to sustain their world view.

How about we discuss wikileaks as they are, not as you hope they might be.

I think many in MSM have legitimate concerns about his motivation and about how “vital to the public interest” these cables have been. No-one here has been able to effectively refute these concerns. In fact, after claiming the “vital importance” of these leaks , Jennifer pointed out it was not her job to actually uncover this "vital importance". I wonder how anyone can claim the ‘vital importance’ of the leaks without pointing to leaks of ‘vital importance’? Unless you claim that the mere act of uncovering secret information is, by itself, vitally important.

I see you agree with my assessment that the leaks thus far are at worst politically embarrassing. This merely reinforces my key point, which is that the relevance of this material has determined the response to it.

Yet you disagree that this will politically damage the US and its allies.?? I think it will damage Julia Gillard, it has damaged Rudd and Mark Arbib. I haven’t been following the US impact closely but to suggest it won’t damage Obama and the Democrats is unrealistic.

Continued

So is it a more reasonable speculation that a request for the removal of a challenging first post in response to an article written by someone who, perhaps at the time unknowingly, was being groomed as a replacement PM, might be made by those doing the grooming rather than by or on behalf of the aspirant herself, and especially so if any response that might be made by the groomee might go against an already established policy of the groomer?

Now if the routine large-scale endigitisation of sensitive diplomatic records (amongst many other administrative and organisational things) is just too good a tool for a superpower government to forego the use of, while at the same time a feature of that tool is the carrying within itself of the seeds, the potential, for massive across-the-board insecurity, what alternative is there for such government other than to adopt a 'shoot the messenger, any messenger' policy when security is inevitably, as it has been, breached? Unshot, any messenger's remaining 'out there' with the leaks still on display can only result in that government's becoming held, if it is not already, in international derision.




The only workable alternative would be the adoption by such a government of an information regime of complete transparency, while at all times conducting a foreign policy that is morally and ethically defensible in its entirety.




A footnote to the matter of routine large-scale endigitization (There! See! I have spelled the word the US English way, with a zed! Everybody happy?) of governmental administrative records in an Australian context may exist in an informed consideration as to the extent to which the use of that administrative tool has been applied to the Australian electoral process, what electoral outcomes it might, over the years, have been capable of facilitating, and as to in which government's interests it may have been used. http://bit.ly/fXkyHx

Then again, perhaps they have been all, between them, only playing 'leapfrog'. You know, 'when one staff officer jumps right over another staff officer's back!'.

Oh what a lovely war!

PaulL

Assange maintains that transparency encourages untruthful, deceptive and conspiratorial organisations to reform so that they can be proud to display their achievements and activities to the world....but you seem to have a problem with that?

PaulL

I must confess I don't quite see how you know the content of some 230,000 cables that have not yet been released. Unless you are in a position to have read them already.

I did not point out that it isn't my job to "uncover" the cables, though it isn't. I said that it is not my task to do this research for people.

Again, I point out that you are not the determiner of what is and is not of vital interest to people other than yourself, especially on this forum.

You can be as bombastic as you like, the fact remains that people will make their own judgments as to the interest or otherwise of the Wikileaks story and they may or may not coincide with yours.

This is a forum where people express their opinions. Writers here write opinion pieces. Graeme Young publishes an enormously wide variety of opinion, and in this, OLO is quite unique and highly valued.It isn't a vehicle for one particular point of view.

If you find the cables and Wikleaks boring (though it doesn't sound as if boredom is your problem), then get on with your life and ignore it. Nobody here is telling you you have to find it exciting and interesting.

I'll remind you that some 3 million people already had access to these cables before they were given to Assange. Assange is a media player who was given material by a source. Just like any New York Times, Guardian or SMH editor.

The responsibility for the leaks rests with the US State Dept, whose security was apparently too inadequate to protect the material from those 3 million people, and from the lowly soldier who downloaded it at his desk.

I am now going to exercise the right you so kindly reminded me that I have, and ignore you.
Jennifer Wilson

briar rose, in her post of Sunday, 19 December 2010 at 12:22:48 PM, observes in relation to PaulL:

"I must confess I don't quite see how
you know the content of some 230,000
cables that have not yet been released.
Unless you are in a position to have read
them already."

ROFL

It is always a sheer and utter delight, briar rose, when one encounters true perceptiveness, a quality so sadly lacking amongst much of the Fourth Estate these days. It is good that you not only write for what, due to that enormous default, is fast becoming Australia's perhaps most significant journal of record, OLO, but engage as an author in the discussions your articles start.

For this post of yours I hereby nominate you, Jennifer Wilson, for the OLO Nobble Piece Prize for 2010, with Laurels. (The Nobble Piece Prize is awarded on OLO for the public unfrocking of suspected impostor posters by OLO Article authors. On rare occasions the Nobble Piece Prize with Laurels is awarded if, in the unfrocking, multiple OLO personae can be Stockholm tarred* with the same brush. There exists a Forum rule on OLO prohibiting the use of multiple userIDs.)

There is, sadly, presently no monetary component to the OLO Nobble Piece Prize, but perhaps, after all the dust settles and all stocks of condoms held in Sweden have been checked for servicability, the King of Sweden may endow OLO for this prize in recognition of its role in revealing the likely true nature of the first-ever terrorist attack upon Swedish soil.

As a recently-recalled-to-duty GELATO officer** on OLO, it is my pleasure to leak to you for your enjoyment this archived OLO post which I have titled 'Paul.L on PaulL': http://bit.ly/fW0Qh8

The context in which many of the posts in the composite posting history of this seeming OLO multiple personality, which you have unfrocked, have been made, is most interesting.

"Oh say, can you see ....."





*Stockholm Tar: An equine remedy for lacerations, particularly effective on American Quarterhorses.

**The GELATO: http://bit.ly/hLaUvl

Jennifer,

You say “I did not point out that it isn't my job to "uncover" the cables, though it isn't. I said that it is not my task to do this research for people. “

I’m wondering what you think is the essential difference?

My point has been simple and on topic.

I have defended the reaction of journalists who have been underwhelmed by Assange and his leaks. You have claimed vital importance for these leaks. I have attempted to get you to demonstrate how these cables have been vitally important, which you have studiously ignored. I’m sorry if you feel I have been bombastic but as you can see, I am beset by at least one moron who greatly amuses him/herself

Forrest,
Careful there mate or you’ll find yourself with blisters.

Poirot,
You say “Assange maintains that transparency encourages untruthful, deceptive and conspiratorial organisations to reform so that they can be proud to display their achievements and activities to the world....but you seem to have a problem with that?”

I dispute the premise that
1) The above is an accurate reflection of what he wants to achieve, regardless of what he says.
2) That the leaks will lead to that goal

In fact, i believe it is his intention to undermine the current political system. Furthermore, he knows that the results of these leaks will be a tightening of information security, which was his intention.

I’ve asked for cables which prove significant conspiratorial behaviour. They have not been forthcoming.

Do you have a problem with diplomats not telling foreign leaders exactly what they think of them? Do you think that Diplomats to North Korea, for example, should not be making assessments that Kim Jong Il would not be happy with?

Gotta say thanks FG, for linking me to that old thread.

It cleared up any doubt about your conspiratorial outlook. 9/11 was a failed coup de tat, was it?

I had a few laughs and in particular, brings to mind that old chestnut,

" Never argue with idiots, someone watching might not be able to tell the difference"

I owe an apology to viewers and our new OLO laureate.

I have been so busily basking in what I think is my newly accorded online status of 'idiot', that I have neglected to inform readers of this thread (and the King of Sweden) what may have been OLO's role in "revealing the likely true nature of the first-ever terrorist attack upon Swedish soil".

Its all derivable from the leaked cables, of course, when the relevant one is read in the light of events contemporary with the complaints laid in Sweden in relation to which Assange's extradition is sought: the defective Interpol warrant upon which Assange's arrest was initially sought, his detention with attempted denial of bail in the UK including the UK CPS claim as to there having been no record of Assange's entry into the UK from Sweden, and the terrorist attack in Stockholm on Saturday 11 December.

The relevant cable appears to be this one: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/11/08STOCKHOLM748.html

This cable is capable of being interpreted, when read in the light of the aforesaid contemporary events, as it has been in this post on the 'Sanctuary' thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104883

Now if one is a non-believer in co-incidence, there are several obvious candidates deserving of the credit for this 'little demonstration' in downtown Stockholm: some agency of the Swedish government, some agency of the US government, or some agency of another national government having an interest (or wishing they didn't) in the matter, in possession of knowledge as to what this now-deceased Swedish citizen may have been up to.

If one is a true believer in co-incidence, of course, the attack was due to a radicalised islamic emigre unhappy with cartoons, who happened not to know very much about bombs. Very decent it was of him, too, not to have seriously injured any other of his fellow Swedish citizens in his protest.

Australia and Sweden: two constitutional monarchies with a condominium of interest, facilitated by OLO.

Forrest Gumpp, thank you and I am indeed honoured and happy to accept the accolade.

Thank you for engaging with my work, and for bringing your sense of humour to the discussion.
Happy holidays to you, and we will meet again in 2011 I hope.
Jennifer.