Last week, the Guardian essentially condemned itself for publishing WikiLeaks material. The incident prompted a closer examination of how WikiLeaks decides what to publish, and it turns out the organization is taking its cues from the five establishment news publications it has partnered with.
Julian Assange said he came up with the idea for the new site while combing through hundreds of thousands of pages of WikiLeaks documents: “I realized that diplomats didn’t have a way to reconnect with old colleagues so they could lie to them.”
Critical negotiations are under way in Cancun, Mexico, under the auspices of the United Nations to reverse human-induced global warming, and the United States is engaged in what one journalist called “a very, very dirty business.”
Iran is winning and Israel is losing. That is the startling conclusion we reach if we consider how things have changed in the Middle East in the two years since most of the WikiLeaks State Department cables about Iran’s regional difficulties were written.
When asked what would happen if he was “taken out,” either physically or technically, WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange said in an online chat that more than 100,000 people have encrypted copies of leaked material and “if something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically.”
It’s a sad day when working journalists condemn those who would pry loose a few secrets from the national security state. Glenn Greenwald has done an excellent job tracking the hypocrites, hacks and access addicts. His latest target is Joe Klein (above), who describes WikiLeaks’ work as a “human disaster.” ... (more)