Monday, October 25, 2010

Those Who Can, Do; and Those Who Can't ...

... or won't, try to change the subject.

With Julian Assange's WikiLeaks having again published "our" government's secrets, it's interesting to see how the big media respond. Here's an example. By all means, have a look at the whole article. What jumps out at me is that there's no claim that the revelations aren't authentic. Instead, the emphasis is on whether Assange himself is a nice, winsome guy or not:
Much has changed since 2006, when Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, used years of computer hacking and what friends call a near genius I.Q. to establish WikiLeaks, redefining whistle-blowing by gathering secrets in bulk, storing them beyond the reach of governments and others determined to retrieve them, then releasing them instantly, and globally.

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”
Yes, I suppose Mr. Assange's primary concern should have been to make our hired collaborators perfectly safe. Or maybe not. If collaborating with the invader (the "Coalition," that is) is known to be very dangerous, perhaps the Coalition won't be able to hire collaborators. And that would be very, very bad. Or maybe not.

In any case, there's no such thing as a legitimate government secret, and Mr. Assange should go on doing what he's doing. If he's not an agreeable fellow, perhaps he should also work on his people skills. But meanwhile, the false "journalists" (i.e., corporate/government whores) working for the respectable media should start doing their proper jobs, instead of hatcheting someone who's doing what they should be doing -- but won't.

No comments: