The popularity of Wikileaks is due in part to the failure of mainstream media to investigate and follow-up on important stories and the impact of WL probably would not be so hate-filled by some Conservative sectors had other media already risen to the challenge.

A few months ago I listened to an interview with a prominent politician and the hedging of questions and deliberate evasion was ever-present, I waited for some sort of investigative journalist to come back with some research or reveal documents obtained under FOI to counter those evasions. Still waiting. This is the norm for media, short grabs at attention and then the issue is forgotten because another new issue has raised it's head.

There are the odd shows and sites that do provide some contrast to this more shallow reporting style.

The difference is Wikilkeaks is not beholden to anybody. There are no shareholders, only citizens. There is no imperative to curry favour or to pander to politicians and other high profile people to ensure first dibs at the next big story. Wikileaks does not care about the corporate politico in-crowd.

Wikileaks acts more as an information clearing house, providing the raw data/footage and allowing people to make up their own minds. For democracy to work, people need information about who they are voting for, which is why WL is so popular. It treats people as adults - sharing information and providing reality over spin.

Wikileaks is nothing to be afraid of, it is those who would restrict access to information that one should be wary.

Arh see where you went wrong there Jacinta, you think that Limited News was interested in making a paper(s) that report the news.

They are just selling advertising space.

Jacinta, welcome to OLO.

Pelican has a point when he speaks of MSM rather than just News Ltd. Why is your comparison restricted to just this one?

The MSM has been in transition for many years, some of it good and some bad. Having asked a couple of retired journo’s recently, why we no longer have the professional journalistic processes of information gathering, dissemination, investigation, fact checking, release production and (independently) opinion pieces. Their responses were “money”.

One journo used to work in Fleet Street and told me that he recently visited his old office to find only about 10% of former staffer levels. But that’s due to technology advances surely? No he said, they just do less journalism.

Most news and current affairs outlets now offer less actual news, less facts and much more partisan opinion. I think we are increasingly cautious of the opinions of others and would rather get the raw details upon which to blend and compare with other sources, then formulate our own opinions.

I also think that WL’s generates an element of sensationalism and conspiracy theory of its own for those susceptible. In the end it’s probably just another market based response to the failures in other media sectors.

I was intrigued by the survey that showed 80% of Greens supporting WL. I wonder how the Greens would feel if some of the 250,000 yet to be released diplomatic cables reflected very badly on the AGW topic for instance

There's a lot of circular logic and confusion in this piece.

So "80 per cent of Greens voters unreservedly support Wikileaks"? So what? That's 80 per cent of very few. And it's from an on line survey - that is, a self-selected and skewed sample. A sample of a sample, in effect.

There's also the confusion between "leaks" and "investigative journalism": these are not alternative terms for the same activity. A leak, by it's nature, is not necessarily available to any journalist who asks questions.

And I'm always amused at the propensity for those of the Left to defend Assange - he of the personality problems and rape allegations - and to bestow on him admirable qualities invisible to the rest of us.

Assange's publication of leaked documents - documents which may have been leaked because somebody else had an agenda unknown to us and unqueried by Assange - is in conflict with allegations that he requires those working for Wikileaks to sign confidentiality agreements. Assange likes to be the publisher of leaks, not the subject of them, apparently. So he's a hypocrite, too.

Assange, when questioned on the lack of news leaks from Israel stated that they are distributed to the publishers, but do not get a run in the press.

Even though this policy has been clear for 10 years in Zionist controlled media such as the New York Times, it applies to Murdoch even more so as he owes his success in world media domination to the Jews. As a result, the filtering that is used by Murdoch in the discarding of news stories that are worthy of printing such as the selling out by the US Congress to the wishes of the Netanyahu militarists, always receive the Murdoch slant and always written by the tame ‘yes’ men, mouthpieces for Zionists such as Sheridan from The Australian.

They never has been an era when so little investigative reporting has been done. The like-minded thinking of the editors being paid by Murdoch has become something of a joke in that with just a high school education any informed 15 year old can probably write the Murdoch version of any news story before his hacks, on any day of the week. It is simple really and follows the following guidelines...

Anti-Israel....Totally discarded by all staff on direction.

Anti-US war policy..... Carefully written so as not to contradict any of the dictates of the likes of Rumsfelt, Bush, Powell and Cheney from a past era and one in which the erosion of the world media’s directions, the truth, including Murdoch, were clearly formulated, still in place today.

Australian government...Attitude based solely on anything that impacts Murdoch's ability to make money from this relatively small marketplace. So he is anti-carbon tax, anti-Gillard (showing good judgement for a change) and featuring news always peppered with positive but misrepresented spin for his masters in the middle east.

If it is investigative journalism you want and you can’t find it in the Fairfax Press, then don’t bother to look for it in a Murdoch rag. It won’t be there.

So don’t expect much more from Assange’s Wikileaks. He has sent it out but the Zionists won’t print it.

One of the problems with Australian politics is to see issues purely in terms of Left and Right politics, often with no basis other than reflecting a personal bias about a different world view.

Government accountability and transparency is not a Left issue, many Right Wing libertarians and those middle of the road folk also support Wikileaks as part of a desire for better democracies.

Wikileaks is an idea, it is not all about Assange.

Rip into the bastards, Jacinta.
Well done!

Citizen Murdoch is scary, scary...

I think Assange is doing a great job. Don't think he has the greatest respect for women, but he's not a rapist. Anyway that's immaterial.
What he has done is publish internal US DOD/DOS files and memos. Contrary to what some have said, many of the docs expose war crimes committed by US and puppet troops.
There are many memos concerning Occupied Palestine, but, one needs to remember they are to bosses from people who want to keep their jobs and have little to say contrary to US/Israel policy. Seek and ye shall find.
Press TV has had articles taken from Wikileaks.
They are NOT the truth. One must read between the lines.
I think if someone offered him a few million and a staff, he would be pleased to 'journalize' the releases.