I am not dismissing the importance of what they released. I am hoping that people would see their sensationalist method of reporting.
Take for example the last apache fire video. Its true that it was troubling, its true that it was gruesome and its also true that it will remind people who are otherwise oblivious to the consequences of war, even if it is for a few moments.
But how much value does that piece of video have in changing the perception of public, even after months of hyping ("CIA is following us" on twitter) about it? I suppose not much.
Was this video more significant than the revelation that Iraq never had WMD to begin with? Is this video more significant than Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse? Is this any more significant than 100s of videos you will find online about armies killing Iraqis?
The simple fact is that this single incident is not anymore significant than other 100s of incidents that has been widely reported by mainstream media. People who care, read about it and know about it.
They are certainly not the bad guys but I think wikileaks have questionable ethics and when you have questionable ethics its hard to take you or the news you have seriously, even if the news are exceptional [1]. The idea that they have millions of documents that they can't release because they don't have enough funds is utterly ridiculous. Holy shit, someone tell him about a thing called "torrents".
Their whole point of the sensationalist, biased video release was to get maximum bang for the bucks and get those donations piling up. Which is exactly what happened.
[1] See also: Fox News. (not they are not exceptional, but their occasional truths are lost amid their river of lies)
I lost most of my respect for them long time ago [--] Take for example the last apache fire video.
Do you have another example, from long time ago? That last one was widely panned, but prior to that, their editorialism wasn't criticized very much (though I seem to recall there was some; I just wasn't paying attention).
Wikileaks has been around for less than 3 years. So when I say "long time ago" you have to take it as a figure of speech. I did say I lost respect for them, but I didn't say I lost respect for them as a result of their release of any particular information. I lost respect since they started to claim that they have more than a million documents (2007) waiting to be released, but they can't release it because of lack of funds, specifically for infrastructure costs and had to close the site down. Which they later expanded into legal fees, their website (when they were shut down) showed that their legal fees is being paid by other non-profit organizations and most lawyers are working pro-bono (since they opened up the site I can't find the page or the piece of information). For the love of me I don't understand how they can have an operative cost of €600,000 per year. They never addressed the specifics of their costs.
More WTF, they listed some members in their advisory boards (including Noam Chomsky), who didn't even know that they were members of wikileaks advisory board. [1]
There are quite a few things about wiki-leaks that doesn't make sense or add up, and perhaps the nature of their work creates some discrepancies in information about their work, but that shouldn't take away anything from some of the valuable leaks that came from wikileaks.
Two rules I try to apply in my life.
1) Be skeptical of anyone and everyone. Everyone is biased and everyone has a motive. "Who watches the watchmen"?
2) Don't put anyone in unrealistic moral standard. Avoid "herofication" of individuals or an organization. Humans are fallible.
Take for example the last apache fire video. Its true that it was troubling, its true that it was gruesome and its also true that it will remind people who are otherwise oblivious to the consequences of war, even if it is for a few moments.
But how much value does that piece of video have in changing the perception of public, even after months of hyping ("CIA is following us" on twitter) about it? I suppose not much.
Was this video more significant than the revelation that Iraq never had WMD to begin with? Is this video more significant than Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse? Is this any more significant than 100s of videos you will find online about armies killing Iraqis?
The simple fact is that this single incident is not anymore significant than other 100s of incidents that has been widely reported by mainstream media. People who care, read about it and know about it.
They are certainly not the bad guys but I think wikileaks have questionable ethics and when you have questionable ethics its hard to take you or the news you have seriously, even if the news are exceptional [1]. The idea that they have millions of documents that they can't release because they don't have enough funds is utterly ridiculous. Holy shit, someone tell him about a thing called "torrents".
Their whole point of the sensationalist, biased video release was to get maximum bang for the bucks and get those donations piling up. Which is exactly what happened.
[1] See also: Fox News. (not they are not exceptional, but their occasional truths are lost amid their river of lies)