There was a time when editors and reporters thought of themselves as citizens first and journalists second. There were damaging leaks even during World War II, but when they occurred they were generally denounced by the rest of the press. We now seem to have reached a moment when the West’s major news organizations, working hand in glove with a sleazy website, feel free to throw spitballs at those who make policy and those who execute it. This is journalism as pure vandalism. If I were responsible, I would feel shame and embarrassment. But apparently, those healthy emotions are in short supply these days.
You remember back when journalists behaved like 'citizens', don't you? Like how the Tet Offensive was reported accurately as a huge defeat for the NVA or how it was all over the papers that Stalin was murdering tens of millions during his famines and purges. What? You didn't hear about those things? How could that be with all of the selfless "citizens" reporting the news.
I don't support Mr. Assange's tactics but if I must choose between Boot's 'back in the day' 'journalism' or Wikileaks, I'll take 'ol leaky anytime. More news is better news.
Additional points: 1. Wikileaks has mostly confirmed the Conservative story line which the mainstream press has sought to keep quiet. 2. It has exposed (once again) our twice paid 'public servants' as sloppy incompetents and 3. It has pierced the diplomatic veil which has been used more often to obfuscate than to clarify issues of war and peace and inter-state relations. Jim Geraghty notices all this:
At Commentary, J.E. Dyer sees potential for some good to come of all this mess: "A free press has often meant an adversarial press, and that in itself is not inherently bad. But an adversarial posture is justified by the constructiveness of its goals. There is a noticeably sophomoric element in the mainstream media's cooperation with WikiLeaks: an indiscriminate enthusiasm for anything that's being kept secret by the authorities, regardless of its objective value as information. We can only hope that the New York Times editorial staff will eventually make use of its own archives to put today's uninteresting parade of revelations in context. I would disagree with Max [Boot] on one thing. The worth of the latest WikiLeaks dump is greater than zero -- and greater even than its value in notifying us about Qaddafi's voluptuous Ukrainian nurse. Its true value lies in confirming what hawks and conservatives have been saying about global security issues. China's role in missile transfers from North Korea to Iran; Syria's determined arming of Hezbollah; Iran's use of Red Crescent vehicles to deliver weapons to terrorists; Obama's strong-arming of foreign governments to accept prisoners from Guantanamo -- these are things many news organizations are reporting prominently only because they have been made known through a WikiLeaks dump. In the end, WikiLeaks's most enduring consequences may be the unintended ones."
Additional points: 1. Wikileaks has mostly confirmed the Conservative story line which the mainstream press has sought to keep quiet. 2. It has exposed (once again) our twice paid 'public servants' as sloppy incompetents and 3. It has pierced the diplomatic veil which has been used more often to obfuscate than to clarify issues of war and peace and inter-state relations. Jim Geraghty notices all this:
At Commentary, J.E. Dyer sees potential for some good to come of all this mess: "A free press has often meant an adversarial press, and that in itself is not inherently bad. But an adversarial posture is justified by the constructiveness of its goals. There is a noticeably sophomoric element in the mainstream media's cooperation with WikiLeaks: an indiscriminate enthusiasm for anything that's being kept secret by the authorities, regardless of its objective value as information. We can only hope that the New York Times editorial staff will eventually make use of its own archives to put today's uninteresting parade of revelations in context. I would disagree with Max [Boot] on one thing. The worth of the latest WikiLeaks dump is greater than zero -- and greater even than its value in notifying us about Qaddafi's voluptuous Ukrainian nurse. Its true value lies in confirming what hawks and conservatives have been saying about global security issues. China's role in missile transfers from North Korea to Iran; Syria's determined arming of Hezbollah; Iran's use of Red Crescent vehicles to deliver weapons to terrorists; Obama's strong-arming of foreign governments to accept prisoners from Guantanamo -- these are things many news organizations are reporting prominently only because they have been made known through a WikiLeaks dump. In the end, WikiLeaks's most enduring consequences may be the unintended ones."
Time to climb out of your Council on Foreign Relations jumpsuit, Mr. Boot. Or as Sgt. Hulka would say: "Lighten up, Francis".
No comments:
Post a Comment