Well said Antony.
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? Arbib has been incredibly stupid and he needs the heat put on him to determine what of our national secrets he might have divulged to his interlocutors. We are after all an independent country with different national interests to that of the US. Aren't we?
An unhealthy closeness between the media and the political process has led in the past to some strange outcomes, such as doing the odd job for intelligence agencies and in some instances working more or less permanently as an agent. Unfortunately it sits far more easily these days with the secrecy and spin required from being embeded. Strange word that, sounds a lot like being 'in bed with'.
I can't begin to immagine why Leigh Sales has benn given the 7.30 slot on the ABC.
Bruce Haigh

The Leigh Sales interview with Hilary Clinton was heavily scripted including approval of the questions from the audience - a real PR job if ever there was, although if it wasn't Sales it would have been another journalist equally immobilised by the arrangements.

In defence of Leigh Sales did a pretty good expose of the David Hicks affair in her book.

Wikileaks has gained grass roots support because of it's impartiality in publishing documents without censure or commentary excepting risk of life (according to the website).

There has always been sycophantic relations between journos in the press gallery and public officials/politicians. It is very much a scratch back affair, although there are camps that form based on a loose semblance of ideology. Journalists are like any other profession - and career advancement is a strong motivation.

Much of what the cables reveal are really nothing new. The details might be new and the players may change but the story remains familiar. The public's only reality is what is fed them via the mainstream media some of it will be a true account some of it conjecture or politically-fed spin. Some journalists are better than others at sorting out fact from fiction.

Wikileaks (hopefully) will continue to play a strong role in exposing reality over the spin we get fed from officials on important issues like Afghanistan and Iraq. Some interesting stuff on corporate bullying and corruption out on the site now too. This can only be a good thing in the long term though I suspect there will be many stops and starts along the way.

Pelican, you say much of what is revealed in the cables is nothing new.

I am seriously over hearing that inaccuracy.

For one thing, we have only had about 200 out of a quarter of a million, so it's a bit soon to jump to that conclusion.

For another, I have learned a great deal so far that I didn't know - that Hilary Clinton ordered the theft of UN officials personal data for example. And I had no idea Arbib was so cosy with the USA. I could go on.

There's a lot that's new to an awful lot of people.

briar rose I don't dispute much of the information is new just not much in what has already been released. I cannot comment on the documents that have not been published to date.

I probably phrased it poorly, stating the 'story' is familiar even if the players/situation are new. I am not arguing all the information is old news just that corruption is rife and that in itself is not NEW, and is implicit in much of the journalism of various media on the war issues in particular but also on Free Trade agreements and the like. Wikileaks in some ways provides us with the cold hard evidence on much of what has been already partially revealed in other media. For example, we now know Arbib is a frequent visitor to the US Embassy and revealer of information including internal ALP politics, but is that really surprising. Many people meet with the US Embassy including public servants.

The Rio Tinto/BHP stuff is also new but not surprising in context of international relations.

Corruption is also not new and it is important that these facts continue to be revealed. I am not downplaying the importance of this information at all, just that the revelations are not a surprise and the reaction by the US in particular, is way over the top.

Much of the Afghanistan/Iraq information has been 'outed' previously - we all know that there were never any WMDs for example. We know the Karzai regime is fraught with problems and is itself corrupt etc etc.

In essentials, we know that the US Embassy meets often with officials and politicians. What we don't know is how MUCH power and influence the US has on Australian policy decisions.

A good article.

The comment that on the 7.30 Report that the US Assistant Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell 'had asked to come on the program to counter the damage' of Wikileaks in the SMH. Possibly forced upon O'Brien by someone on high after a request to them . A US/Australia Leadership Dialogue attendee, perhaps?
Similarly, the Panorama broadcast of the Gaza 'invasion' from the BBC and the ABC, a proven distortion of the facts, re-engineered to adopt to the Israeli PR viewpoint then carried around the world.

National and once-respected broadcasters are being manipulated on a regular basis but the motivation for these actions come from within the networks themselves.

There are strong objections to the "Leadership" conferences, commenced by the US and now emulated by Israel, a large dose of continuous not-so-subtle largesse and allowing both nations to call in their dues when the time is ripe as it was in the case of the feckless Gillard, an attendee at one of these charades in Israel and now with a firm policy of subservience to Israel.
Sadly for her, it has also formed the basis of her lack of compassion for the Palestinian cause for whom her stated public concerns could be written on the back of a stamp. This will seriously contribute to her downfall as contrary to her judgement and reflected in her version of Australia's foreign policy, an overwhelming majority of Australians support the Palestinians and well may this continue.
Again, she has read this incorrectly, yet again; Education Revolution, Home insulation, ETS, Immigration, Detention Centres and on.

The same with Arbib, perhaps one of the most ineffective politicians ever to come to Canberra and there only because of the influence of his rightwing fund-raiding efforts in NSW and now a Senator. What price rightwing votes for a leftwing Prime Minister?
The US would be now using him to support their plans for Australia to accept a number of Australian bases on our soil to add to the 750 they already have in the world.

Honest, arms length journalism, now a memory so it seems.

Pelican,

<<Much of what the cables reveal are really nothing new.>> So far perhaps true for some, but this is about freedom of information for all. Trivialization of that information is your opinion.

We have yet to see the range of topics and issues covered by the diplomatic comments. We have to assume that anything and everything across the full diplomatic spectrum is covered, yes even soccer, which brings me to another point.

You say <<Wikileaks has gained grass roots support because of it's impartiality in publishing documents without censure or commentary accepting risk of life (according to the website).>>

Without censure? We assume but we don’t know this claim to be true, yet. If Wikileaks is releasing that which suits its own agenda, whatever that might be, then at the very least they are being “selective”. If we don’t see some of the other “stuff” pretty soon we might begin to wonder about censorship.

Like I said on another thread, C’mon Julian, more topics please.