Even if the information leaked via Wikileaks is just more of the same or only serves to match cynical expectations it is still valuable. The goodwill surrounding Wikileaks is I believe derived from the growing cynicism about politics, not only locally but globally and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

The really big stuff (fodder for conspiracies) I suspect would be less likely from the information derived via diplomatic emails but more from investigative reporting eg. Four Corners and its equivalent such as the exposé about the immoral dealings of private contractors in post and pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan.

Wikileaks has marked out names of certain companies and the like in many of the cables including this one picked at random so there has been some effort to cast an editorial eye should there be a risk of an unfair negative impact. Most publishers and journalistic rags do this to some extent.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09STATE53356.html

Dear Graham,

Assange solidly won me over with the Collateral Murder video and while the focus at the moment is on the diplomatic cables the scope of the material Wikileaks has provided us is far more extensive.

I would think it quite surprising if the Collateral Murder video has not resulted in a change of behaviour by the US armed forces in the way they conduct their operations via their rules of engagement. I am also convinced this would have directly prevented a number of unnecessary deaths.

In your piece you have used biblical references. I will admit to having mined biblical references for my own amusement on OLO and other forums especially Revelation 1:14 “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire”.

One of the responses read;

“I don't know, guys. The theory's not that crazy. Think about it.
1. Jesus came to Earth to spread the truth. Assange is also spreading the truth.
2. Jesus was hated by corrupt politicians. Assange is hated by many world leaders.
3. Jesus risked his life to get his word out there. Assange's life is certainly at risk.
4. Jesus was convicted under trumped-up charges. Assange's charges are, at least, suspicious.
5. After Jesus died, many of his followers took up his cause and spread the word. Assange has many supporters that are ready to release the "insurance file" if anything happens to him.”

There were many others along similar lines, this on some pretty full on American Christian forums.

You state; “Assange is potentially a bit of a bad Santa.” but I also think he is potentially something quite dramatic. Whether an embryonic 'Messiah complex' finds fertile ground and becomes destructive remains to be seen. His obvious principles make keep it in check but power and corruption await just around the proverbial corner.

I do get a sense of game changing currents around Assange gathering over the various and often disparate parts of the internet I access, some quite frightening.

Fascinating stuff.

I find it interesting that Assange gets publically pilloried and accused of being some sort of international terrorist but Laurie Oakes is awarded a Walkley Award for doing precisely the same thing - publishing confidential information that was leaked to him.

Graham Young reports in the article 'Cablegate gift keeps on giving', with respect to the recent OLO research survey, that:

"According to our research, out of a
politically representative group of 950
opinion leaders, 65 per cent approve of
the WikiLeaks organisation, while only
18 per cent disapprove."

As a respondent to that survey, I thank you for the promotion to the rank of Meinungsfuhrer, GrahamY.

The article also makes the observation that:

"WikiLeaks may stand in a sweet spot for its
story, but our love is not unconditional."

Too right! Just imagine if, in further disclosures, some scandal envelopes television personality and chef Gabriel Gate. We would have Gategate, wouldn't we? What with the concurrent threat to the apostrophe, this potentially double-barrelled threat to our ever-evolving aglutinative linguistry would paralyse our ability to communicate in regard to the scandalous or salacious.

Without having had to outlay a dollar, we would all be living, whether we liked it or not, in a 'gated community'!

Yes, I think we should all watch our language in the offering of any opinions in relation to this lamentable security breach.

Now, say, can you see what could happen if, at the same time as Assange is able to be represented as being a type of journalist, an enterprising Swedish entrepreneur was to market a new line of condoms called 'Dip-Your-Wiki': why, it could bring the term 'embedded journalist' into utter disrepute (especially if they leaked!), couldn't it? Lots of US government money has been spent establishing the concept of 'embedded journalism' in the public mind. Wouldn't do to blow it, now, would it? Conditional love. Yep.




BTW, in the process of obtaining from Google the correct German translation for 'opinion leader', I came across this paper that might interest you, should you not already be familiar with it, that purports to address the questions in its title:

"Are all opinion leaders opinion givers?
- Are all opinion givers opinion leaders?
A clarification of constructs based on
empirical data."

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/1/5/5/pages91554/p91554-1.php

Thankyou Graham. OLO has provided a valuable forum and analysis of response to Wikileaks/Assange but on 3 matters, more might have been said:

1. Freedom of the Press and speech. Attacks on Wikileaks for publishing and Assange as its editor should be seen as an attack on all media editors and their right to publish material irrespective of how it came into their possession. I place a very high value on that right, even though I believe that right is not unlimited and may strongly disagree with what is published.

2. Who is responsible? Neither Wikileaks or Assange stole the material they published. It was provided to them by people who were in a position to access it because of a seriously defective system of security used by the US government. It is the US government which should be held responsible for its unauthorised release.

3. Justice and its perversion. The way in which Assange has been treated by the Swedish and UK courts and the UK prison system has been disgraceful. The extent to which they have been “influenced” by the US government is speculative but may well be revealed by Wikileaks in the future.

As others have pointed out, Wikileaks publication of leaked material has been more than simply embarrassing for the US government, its “security” and its military. It has revealed illegal activities, including murder. It has also provided us with candid, if not diplomatic comment, by US officials. If they want their view to remain private, they should insist on better security, rather than demand Assenges blood and demand that others persecute Wikileaks.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/confidential-swedish-police-report-details-claims-against-assange-20101220-192ih.html

Given the intrigue of Julian's sexual habits, and the ease with
which a rape charge can be pressed in Sweden, sounds to me that
Julian might well be a victim of the rabid feminist movement in
Sweden.

In that case its not UK or the US to blame, but Swedish law.