User loginAnarchist LibraryAnarchist Events
|
The Afghanistan War Logs Released by Wikileaks, the World's First Stateless News Organization
“It’s counterintuitive,” he said then. “You’d think the bigger and more important the document is, the more likely it will be reported on but that’s absolutely not true. It’s about supply and demand. Zero supply equals high demand, it has value. As soon as we release the material, the supply goes to infinity, so the perceived value goes to zero.” 2. The initial response from the White House was extremely unimpressive:
3. If you don’t know much about Wikileaks or why it exists, the best way to catch up is this New Yorker profile of Julien Assange.
And for even more depth, listen to this: NPR’s Fresh Air interviewed Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter formerly at the New York Times, about Wikileaks and what it does. (35 min with Q & A.) 4. If you go to the Wikileaks Twitter profile, next to “location” it says: Everywhere. Which is one of the most striking things about it: the world’s first stateless news organization. I can’t think of any prior examples of that. (Dave Winer in the comments: “The blogosphere is a stateless news organization.”) Wikileaks is organized so that if the crackdown comes in one country, the servers can be switched on in another. This is meant to put it beyond the reach of any government or legal system. That’s what so odd about the White House crying, “They didn’t even contact us!” Appealing to national traditions of fair play in the conduct of news reporting misunderstands what Wikileaks is about: the release of information without regard for national interest. In media history up to now, the press is free to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the laws of a given nation protect it. But Wikileaks is able to report on what the powerful wish to keep secret because the logic of the Internet permits it. This is new. Just as the Internet has no terrestrial address or central office, neither does Wikileaks. 5. And just as government doesn’t know what to make of Wikileaks (“we’re gonna hunt you down/hey, you didn’t contact us!”) the traditional press isn’t used to this, either. As Glenn Thrush noted on Politico.com:
Notice how effective this combination is. The information is released in two forms: vetted and narrated to gain old media cred, and released online in full text, Internet-style, which corrects for any timidity or blind spot the editors at Der Spiegel, The Times or the Guardian may show. 6. From an editor’s note: “At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.” There’s the new balance of power, right there. In the revised picture we find the state, which holds the secrets but is powerless to prevent their release; the stateless news organization, deciding how to release them; and the national newspaper in the middle, negotiating the terms of legitimacy between these two actors. 7. If you’re a whistle blower with explosive documents, to whom would you rather give them? A newspaper with a terrestrial address organized under the laws of a nation that could try to force the reporter you contacted to reveal your name, and that may or may not run the documents you’ve delivered to them online…. or Wikileaks, which has no address, answers no subpoenas and promises to run the full cache if they can be verified as real? (And they’re expert in encryption, too.) Also, can we agree that a news organization with a paywall wouldn’t even be in contention? 8. I’ve been trying to write about this observation for a while, but haven’t found the means to express it. So I am just going to state it, in what I admit is speculative form. Here’s what I said on Twitter Sunday: “We tend to think: big revelations mean big reactions. But if the story is too big and crashes too many illusions, the exact opposite occurs.” My fear is that this will happen with the Afghanistan logs. Reaction will be unbearably lighter than we have a right to expect— not because the story isn’t sensational or troubling enough, but because it’s too troubling, a mess we cannot fix and therefore prefer to forget. Last week, it was the Washington Post’s big series, Top Secret America, two years in the making. It reported on the massive security shadowland that has arisen since 09/11. The Post basically showed that there is no accountability, no knowledge at the center of what the system as a whole is doing, and too much “product” to make intelligent use of. We’re wasting billions upon billions of dollars on an intelligence system that does not work. It’s an explosive finding but the explosive reactions haven’t followed, not because the series didn’t do its job, but rather: the job of fixing what is broken would break the system responsible for such fixes. The mental model on which most investigative journalism is based states that explosive revelations lead to public outcry; elites get the message and reform the system. But what if elites believe that reform is impossible because the problems are too big, the sacrifices too great, the public too distractible? What if cognitive dissonance has been insufficiently accounted for in our theories of how great journalism works… and often fails to work? I don’t have the answer; I don’t even know if I have framed the right problem. But the comment bar is open, so help me out. 9. Few people realize how important leaking has been to the rise of the political press since the mid-18th century. Leaks were actually “present at the creation” of political reporting. I’m moving quickly this morning, so I only have time for a capsule version. Those with a richer knowledge of the British Parliament’s history can confirm or correct this outline. Once upon a time, Parliament’s debates were off limits to newspapers. But eventually, through a long period of contestation, the right to report on what was said in Parliament was securely won (though not constitutionally guaranteed.) John Wilkes is the pivotal figure and 1770 the date when the practice became institutionalized. A factor in that struggle was the practice of leaking. The way it worked then is essentially the same as it works today. There’s a bitter dispute in Parliament and people line up on one side or the other. Unable or unwilling to accept defeat, the losing faction decides to widen the battlefield by leaking confidential information, thus bringing the force of public opinion into play. It’s a risky maneuver, of course, but the calculation is that fighting it out in public may alter the balance of forces and lead to a re-decision. Each time the cycle is repeated, the press becomes a bigger factor in politics. And internal struggles for power remain to this day a major trigger for leaks. Conscience, of course, is a different trigger. Whistleblowers can be of either type: calculating advantage-seekers, or men and women with a troubled conscience. We don’t know which type provided the logs to Wikileaks. What we do know is that a centuries-old dynamic is now empowering new media, just as it once empowered the ink-on-paper press. Posted by Jay Rosen at July 26, 2010 1:31 AM |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
Wow great article. “We
Wow great article.
“We tend to think: big revelations mean big reactions. But if the story is too big and crashes too many illusions, the exact opposite occurs.”
It's always hard for me to explain this to people i hear saying they want to study journalism to be the one person who exposes that one story that will surely piss off the rabble.
It's hard to explain most
It's hard to explain most things to people that want to be journalists.
lol, Win.
lol, Win.
"The mental model on which
"The mental model on which most investigative journalism is based states that explosive revelations lead to public outcry; elites get the message and reform the system. But what if elites believe that reform is impossible because the problems are too big, the sacrifices too great, the public too distractible? What if cognitive dissonance has been insufficiently accounted for in our theories of how great journalism works… and often fails to work?"
I like the analysis,
America's debt?
-social security.... etc
The Palestinian people?
America's wars without end
I think there is a huge disconnect, reality has been warped to a level in which such problems are neglected(buried) through the media.
Ask most people you know, they all trust the mainstream media one way or another, sure they "Ok, they lie once and a while, but they are mostly correct"
That is right to a point, but when you throw in 'priority', they tend to cover the more bland news/ corporate prospects / or their fed bias, most of the time.
And when you throw in misrepresentation or passive coverage, one can really neglect what is happening right in front of one's eyes.
And people go on their merry way, it is only when it directly affects their lives that they will care, or through personal reflection/investigation.
It is sad, but hopefully the internet continues un-touched, as has really become the last beacon of truth.
Anyways, that is my 2 cents and sorry if you think it is off topic.
In the remote villages of
In the remote villages of the high passes, away from the government, where life approaches an anarchistic ideal, because there Will be hardship, and there Will be 50% child mortality, and if you sit in the village square and tell stories about how in the Western welfare state you are paid for NOT working, they will laugh at you, they will gather around and enjoy the novelty of hearing an outlandish absurd almost surreal story that one does not have to work to survive, they will momentarily be transported out of their hardship to listen to a fantastical delusional story by the author ( but a fact that relies on the exploitation on a global scale by the capitalist ex-colonial empires)
In following days while wandering the area they will point at you and start laughing, as if to say "There goes the man that says that in his country the government pays you to NOT work, and where opium is banned and you are imprisoned for its use or distribution, this being the medicine that enables us in our poverty to endure starvation and minus 20 temperatures. This surely is a man who is paroding us, and we will laugh with him, because he shares his food and cigarettes with the destitute. He is parodying the invaders, but his generosity and humor makes him a friend of ours, and he makes us laugh with his fantasies."
Gunter
PS. The Afghanistan masse
PS. The Afghanistan masse were avoided by Alexander the Great, Kipling described the Afghan tribespeople as "Widow makers" , they forced a Soviet retreat of technological supremacy. Determinism via autonomous faith or Islamic faith empowered the individual to dismantle artillery and carry the heavy parts over goat tracks while a blizzard was blowing. The Vietnamese did the same tactic at Keh San. Umm, does not one learn from history? One does not want to fuck with these people or they will seriously fuck back on you. They have nothing to lose, they have no luxuries, iron nails are an asset, death is omnipresent, thus the recruitmen And this is not terrorism, it's about evicting the 30th invader that exploites or wishes to destroy their opium crop. Have you starved for 1 week but been re-,,Oh what's the point, you are all so weak, so sheepish, sorry, I'm sad for you aswell, but I have licence to spit on your grave as well!!
Gunter