I love bloggers. I love amateur journalists. I really do. On more than one occasion (and still too few,) each has played a vital role in keeping larger media outlets honest. And on more than one occasion each has answered the call when major or minor print publications have been too afraid to break a vitally important story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Whenever an article starts out with effusive praise for something, especially something that is hard to define and covers a broad spectrum of people and interests, it is so that they can demarcate clearly between people and behaviors that are 'acceptable' and those same people and behaviors which are unacceptable within the given range. It is a strawman of a higher sort: instead of craft and refuting arguments that your opponent does not actually hold or put forth, you craft a debate in which one side can only ever be understood as illogical, because the boundaries of the debate have been defined in a way that skews to the side that the creator prefers. More below the fold:
Quoting Womack:
So it is difficult for me to look across the blogosphere today and see one show of support after another for a man who has consistently shown himself to have no ethical standards as a journalist, blogger or human being.
Assange and his supporters are a part of an unethical, radical cohort; lacking empathy, reason, and balanced judgment, Wikileaks represents the latest Anarchist fifth-column that advocates justice while resorting to unjust tactics.
From the start, Womack crafts this debate where one side is ethical, and the other side is not. One side is evil, the other side is good. One side is human...
In the intellectual battle between conservative and liberal ideas, some conservatives ideas are actually good, even if we all could argue, and would generally agree in some disorganized internet masturbation session that most conservative ideas are not, the debate is never crafted in a way - a debate that we would all feel valid - that automatically favors one side.
How can we even defend Assange?
He'd release naked pictures of your mother being plowed by her second boyfriend in college if he had them. Your mother's honor be damned; it's all about the radical 'truth.'
And that really, is why Womack is so dangerous; why he is so effective at forwarding Government talking points; why it is so easy for liberals to be shamed into accepting the word of the Government as the final authority.
It is about radicalizing the 'truth', so that even 'truth' is liberal, even 'truth' is political. Even 'truth' is not real. See? So effective is this technique that already I am talking about truth in a political context, the debate has already been framed in a way that the TRUTH can be doubted by its political origin.
Perhaps this has been going on for years - I would not doubt it.
But whether Womack is regurgitating talking points from the landed, nativist elite that are straight from 1910, or whether or not this is just a scary new method of truth suppression, it is a fact that this is a method of truth suppression that is being largely played out in the media.
It must be fought.
Limited interruption: I want to say this about the media, I get all of my news from various internet sources, never the TV. I read analysis (I have the time, I am lucky), and the only cable TV chatter I am familiar with is that which is lampooned by the glorious Driftglass and worth sound-bytes from Maddow or Ed that happen to receive media attention. The fact that I have turned off the TV makes me feel that I am more informed, and I feel that everyone has a duty to turn off the TV when it comes to discussing politics. Maddow and Olbermann, and Maher, and Stewart, are all useful within their own media contexts: Maddow as the progressive educator, Olbermann as a firebrand for liberals on TV, Maher as the intellectual tough-guy, and Stewart as the cut-the-crap social satirist. Or whatever.
Regardless, I believe that the first thing all progressives, moderates, conservative democrats, and even the third way crowd need to do, is turn off the TV. I believe that context in which the issues are framed on TV: even on MSNBC, leads to negative feelings that are by and large unproductive to progressive ends.
Anyway: back to Womack.
First thing is first: Assange is not a journalist. Two, journalist is such a broad term, covering bloggers, paparazzi, MSM, local reporters, and high school kids, that in a lot of ways, even if we could externally define Assange as a type of journalist, having Womack, a member of the mainstream-media, try and deliver a sermon on journalistic ethics is so hypocritical it's impossible to laugh. Ethics followed by standard journalists in America has not been very fruitful: why else can we all get away with calling the New York Times, our paper of record here in the USA, a war cheerleader for their 'ethical' behavior during the leadup to the Iraq War and the institution of the new security regime?
But again back to the first point: Assange is a whistle-blower, he is a source journalists are supposed to use. If you pay attention to the foreign press, you see that is exactly what is happening: the press uses the materials provided by a whistle-blower to inform the public of the dissonance between policy stated by the Government, and policy actually pursued by the Government.
But what about Womack's main point, that Wikileaks:
...has also repeatedly shown a wildly irresponsible disregard for the rights and safety of human beings around the world. And for all the hype surrounding it, what I find most disturbing about the latest WikiLeaks document dump is the resulting exposure of a broad divide between the ethics of responsible journalists and crusading poseurs like Assange.
And given what Glenn Greenwald has discovered about these imperiled human beings?
To recap: warnings about the dangers from WikiLeaks are "significantly overwrought" and the impact on foreign policy: "fairly modest." So it appears that the political class and its eager enablers in the media world and foreign policy community have -- as usual -- severely exaggerated national security threats in order to manipulate the public and its emotional reactions. Shocking, I know.
(Emphasis, Greenwald's)
Womack must therefore be talking about some pretty specific instances:
When given a membership list of the far right British National Party, a responsible news organization would have exposed the police officers, solicitors, clergy and teachers involved in the organization. WikiLeaks posted the entire list of 13,500 members -- complete with home addresses.
The British Fascist and Fuck the Muslim party has its 13.5k membership list published for the world to see. Now the analogue to this would be a small ultra-hippie organization somewhere say, like Somalia, so I cannot say objectively that if turned around I would not be somewhat pissed, but ultimately it seems that all wikileaks did was out a bunch of right-winger racist tards that were building a network for their racism in secret before. Ultimately, this seems like small potatoes, so maybe Womack meant something else:
]When given the contents of Sarah Palin's private email account, a responsible journalist would have detailed the work-related emails that had been sent via that account in violation of the law. WikiLeaks posted full screenshots of personal emails from within the account, including email addresses of Palin's friends and family. (It's worth noting that the hacker himself reported finding "nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I hoped.") WikiLeaks showed itself capable of protecting at least some sensitive information... by concealing the identity of the hacker.
OH GOOD GOD SARAH PALIN'S EMAIL ACCOUNT! Which the Hacker hacked... guessing the password.
Bad? Yes. Unforgivable sin against the world? No.
More:
When given the contents of pager intercepts between Pentagon officials and the NYPD from September 11, 2001, a responsible news organization might have reported compelling exchanges or failures in the response system, leaving out details that might aid those planning future attacks. WikiLeaks saw no need to do all that reading, and just posted them all.
Womack seems to be bitching that wikileaks could not tell the difference between allegedly sensitive logistical information and routine procedure that pertained to a terrorist attack that I assume the relevant emergency agencies have adapted to by now.
Ignorant? Maybe. An indictment against Wikileak's whistleblower philosophy? Only if you're Womack.
Now there is this:
When given the names of Afghan civilians aiding the US, a responsible news organization would never have printed them. WikiLeaks didn't think twice about it. When Amnesty International complained, Assange denied responsibility, arguing that he is not a journalist. He suggested that Amnesty provide staff to redact the names from the already-published documents. When they asked for a meeting, he replied, "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses," before threatening to issue a press release condemning Amnesty for not giving him staff to redact the information he had already posted on his website.
I will admit, Assange, even given context, was being a dick. The people at AI are international allies of the Liberal movement that are constantly smeared by the Right Wing. Infighting is certainly not helpful, and imperiling the lives of aid workers and them blaming the aid workers for not giving you a staff is a dick move. Should he apologize? Yes. Again, is this the final nail in the wikileaks-is-unethical-coffin? Hardly.
Finally, when given a series of cables that detailed the surprisingly alright state of world diplomacy, The Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel worked together, vetting the most sensitive material through the US State Department to redact information that might pose a security risk to US personnel. Behaving as responsibly as was possible (given that the full documents were going to be posted by WikiLeaks anyway,) they were still able to cover the most intriguing stories: The US is spying on UN diplomats in ultra-creepy ways. (The UN's response? Yawn.) More and more of the Arab world would like to see strikes on Iran that the US doesn't want to be responsible for. The US is bargaining for safe releases places for Gitmo prisoners. China was behind a scary-as-hell global hacking effort. The Afghan government is corrupt. Syria is supplying arms to Hezbollah. The biggest bombshell? China is ready to accept a reunified Korea under South Korean rule. Interesting and important (if not earth-shattering) stuff, and a portrait of US diplomacy in its finest hour in a long, long time. And, look -- they did it without giving the Taliban a list of double-agents!
Emphasis mine, as this link from the same Greenwald column vents my exact frustration with the NYT running hand-over-foot to appease Government 'concerns'.
If there is not enough wrong with stating (wrongly, I must repeat) that the world is in an 'alright state' diplomatically, the assertion that Assange would have published a list to help the Taliban is disgusting. It's basically saying that Assange is only interested in hurting the United States, using the truth as a cover - it is Assange politicizing the truth, not the great Larry Womack.
It is possible, you know, to break stories like this without endangering the lives of good people around the world. ... All it takes is a bit of that hard work and common sense that seems so popular with "elitist overlords" and so unpopular with bloggers this week. Those who leap to the defense of WikiLeaks' indiscretion seem hopelessly, fanatically and chillingly blind to that rather obvious point. The question is not, as so many seem to believe, government corruption or WikiLeaks. The question is responsible coverage of legitimate government wrongdoing or lives lost on a megalomaniac's whim. And all of the good work of those three publications becomes of little use once the documents are published in their entirety by a man who lacks the average person's regard for the safety and security of actual human beings.
And what do you know the slander continues! Not only is Assange politicizing the very notion of truth, but he also lacks regard for safety and security of actual (quote) human beings. Assange, Wikileaks, and the Netroots are not working hard: they are simply throwing cinder-blocks from an overpass on the highway of diplomacy.
This is obviously working completely in favor of the Government line. It is a repacking, and republishing of talking points designed to marginalize Assange as a radical, but not just any radical, an actual dangerous radical who uses the truth as a weapon.
Don't you see bloggers?! Assange is using the truth as a weapon!
The politicization is complete: not only is the truth the enemy of the public, it is hurting them too!
So complete is Womack's love for the Government, and so intimate is his embrace of Government goals, that he can do nothing in the following paragraph but wax lyrical about Their Righteous Cause:
Arguably the most egregious example of WikiLeaks' undercutting of diplomacy (in this latest dump) comes in cable 10SANAA4, relating a conversation between General Petraeus and President Saleh of Yemen. In it, it is made clear that President Saleh is allowing the US to use fixed-wing bombers (rather than inaccurate cruise missiles) to strike al Qaeda targets in his country, then reporting to the people and Parliament that the attacks are carried out by Yemen with US weapons. Petraeus and Saleh are both revealed to be concerned about preventing civilian casualties while making effective strikes on al Qaeda. The arrangement is better for the security of both nations, but would cause a huge backlash if known in Yemen. In short: this is what we call a "good lie," boys and girls.
What this makes clear, for the American People, and the People of Yemen, is that Barack Obama and his Administration are expanding the war on terror to the innocent civilians of an impoverished country ruled by a dictator. If the people of Yemen are informed, if they are broken of this 'good lie', boys and girls, then this is bad. Why is it bad? Womack does not tell us. We can only assume it's bad because it ruins the Government game plan, it makes the Government unhappy, and therefore since Womack is scandalously in love with the Government and his sources in it, he can do nothing but react naturally and hide the blemishes of his damaged lover.
There is literally nothing more revolting that what Womack has written in this piece that what he has revealed here: that sometimes it's good to 'lie', even though no card-carrying liberal or defender of America would ever say such a terrible, immoral thing.
Again, all I can say: thank God you don't have a job as an editor anymore.