The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > WikiLeaks challenges journalism-politics partnership > Comments

WikiLeaks challenges journalism-politics partnership : Comments

By Antony Loewenstein, published 14/12/2010

The WikiLeaks documents challenge the entire corrupted relationship between media and political elites.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 9:35:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 10:41:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 10:58:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 11:20:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 3:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 3:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" Trivialization of that information is your opinion."

I am hardly trivialising and have been nothing but supportive of Wikileaks. However OLO is about giving an opinon but do we really need to qualify everything with the caveat "this is just my opinion but....". One assumes an opinion is based on personal experiences and other cognitive abilities.

Perhaps I have been too long in the public service, but much of what has been revealed is not the stuff of gasping shock horror amazement (sadly).

How many people, including those who do not have close access to government that many in the APS do, really believe this stuff is out of the ordinary.

One thing I do agree, that we can't always believe what we read as far as Wikileaks assertions on their website - that is true. Nothing is known until it happens as far as document release goes but so far I have seen almost no country that has been 'spared' from these releases. Thus far I cannot see an agenda other than to further the cause of freedom of information and transparency. Maybe in the future that will be revealed to be inaccurate - until then I for one, live in hope.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 6:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

"Without censure".

This is the line being attacked strongly by the US blog, 'veteranstoday'. Their argument clearly is that it is being well censured to suit other agendas and this is their main argument.
To add to that opinion are some of the best minds on the internet, for those who know them well, Alan Hart and Jeff Gates.

I comment no further on this aspect because regardless of that insidious activity, if it is true, the more important criminal activity is what is happening to Assange in the UK on the instructions, trumped up or otherwise, of Sweden, as well as protecting him from the rabid lunatics that occupy some of the seats in the US Congress and The Senate, themselves more frightening than any "terrorist" could ever be. Why? Because a majority of apathetic people in their electorates just re-elected them for another four years. Frightens the hell out of me!

There is your big problem. The ignorance of the American voters to what is happening in their own country. Most would see the comments from Huckabee, Pallin and the tarnished Gingrich ( CIA should make Assange 'disappear' ) as worthy comment indeed, extracting all their daily information as they do from the diatribe spewing forth from Fox News and the jaundiced, manipulated writings from the New York Times.

So whatever failings we have here in out little parochial cricket pitch, cultural cringe being the worst, but tolerating as we do the feckless characters of both the inept Gillard and Abbott, no one has yet said that we should make Assange "disappear" which makes us a little more civilised than the world's #1 superpower, crumbling slowly as we speak.

In the eyes of the US Attorney General, actively searching as he is for any way, legal or otherwise, to hang Julian Assange from an oak tree or sending him to Salem to be burnt as a witch, all publishers of WikiLeaks are equally guilty.

Let us see him bite into that one!.
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 8:34:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, when I suggested that your “nothing new” comment was trivializing the content of the cables, I was drawing on the analysis provided by Jennifer Wilson, OLO, “And the ABC’s Drum beats: shoot the Wikileaks messenger” By Jennifer Wilson, published 14/12/2010”

She clearly points to this as a technique for diminishing the content and is a form of “shooting the messenger”.

rexw, I am not comforted by what I’m hearing about Wikileaks:

I suggested that “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.”

It would be ironic and devastating for me, if Wikileaks ended up evidencing an agenda other than complete transparency and openness. The statement from the former No2 to Julian Assange in announcing the formation of “openleaks” says;

“We felt Wikileaks is developing in the wrong direction”, claiming that Mr. Assange’s concentration on the US government and his pursuit of the headlines over the leaked US cables had preoccupied the site and stopped it from releasing other leaks and confidential information to the public. He went on to say that “It is not entirely clear any more what is personality and what is organization there. There is too much self promotion for the organization”. (Full article, Peter Wilson, The Australian, Dec. 15, 2010).

If Wikileaks has an agenda and that agenda promotes “selectivity”, then it can only harm Wikileaks and provide ammunition to its opposition.

In the long run if “openleaks” continues the good work and leaves Julian to “draw fire” I guess we have a Plan B?

You say, <<There is your big problem. The ignorance of the American voters to what is happening in their own country.>>

I don’t know that we in Australia are any better? As a blogger you know just how much is not covered by our media.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 8:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extolling the virtues of Wikileaks in one sentence then sowing the seeds of doubt ('censorship') in the next.

As far as the 'climategate' emails go - we know there were far more emails NOT released than selectively were. Did the 'hackers' have an agenda? Probably. The Wikileaks' cables? Spindoc may be right, we don't know what they're hiding.

Yep, paranoia is an affliction that debilitates society.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 9:24:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot, when are you going to learn comprehension to go with your reading?

Since when were the climategate emails "hacked"? Perhaps you should check the current status of the Police invetigation by the Norfolk Constabulary? Sorry to rain on your parade but you're so out of date.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:54:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Pelican, when I suggested that your “nothing new” comment was trivializing the content of the cables, I was drawing on the analysis provided by Jennifer Wilson, OLO, “And the ABC’s Drum beats: shoot the Wikileaks messenger” By Jennifer Wilson, published 14/12/2010”

That might be so spindoc, but I don't see it that way.

Wikileaks is not responsible for the newsworthiness of the documents - they are simply releasing them for public consumption. Some of the revelations (some still to come) may or may not be new.

In a sense, I am trivialising the trivialising of the fact that much of the information is not New or the stuff of science fiction, but rooted in real life and as such we should not be surprised or fearful of those revelations.

Some of it will be new in detail but not in principle eg. fear of a nuclear war with Iran, Russian black market and fear of Muslim extremism. Let's put all cards on the table and make policy decisions based on reality not on what we are told is reality.

In fact my approach is attempting to trivialise the response of the US not that of the messenger, but I can see how you might arrive at your interpretation.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 1:25:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are so very very precious, spindoctor. You are sounding increasingly like a blend of OLO's AlGoreIsRich (or whatever his tag is) and Arjay.

Comprhension? Yeah, sure ... inverted commas have a meaning that obviously eludes you.

Let me make it clearer for others.

I personally think the 'climategate' emails were deliberately and selectively "leaked" immediately prior to COP 15 in Copenhagen for a predetermined and focused agenda (as spindoctor implies of Wikileaks). Successful, you betcha - fear, uncertainty and doubt reigned supreme, and still does (see below).

Can we compare the 'leaks' then to the 'leaks' now? Possibly, it all depends on how may 'commissions of inquiry' they will have.

Will it make a difference? Probably not, there will always be people (not unlike spindoctor) who will conjure up all sorts of conspiracies when they don't hear what they want to hear.

The big picture? There's a whole lot of societal paranoia going on out there and it seems the MSM and fundamentalist ideologues (from any direction) are driven to maintain it (with FUD).

Why? That is the question.

Oh yeah, spindoctor - I don't think the 'Norfolk' investigation should be compared to what may (or may not) eventuate over any 'Wikileaks' investigation.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 5:59:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One last thing spindoctor:

I admire the 'stand' Assange has, and is taking. I also applaud the overwhelming world-wide public support he is receiving (have you signed the petitions or donated? If so we may have some things in common but let me guess, nope).

I am also encouraged by the actions of Geoffrey Robertson QC in defending Assange's rights under international law.

Yep, Julian Assange is out there for the whole world to see.

Why has not the 'climategate leaker' come forward? You do know their name, right?
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 6:50:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy