Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 1:53am

   
   

   you'd wanna be careful that these aren't fake wikileak copies where the idea is to catch leakers "discretely" rather than protect them...who knows

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   What's new?

   

   yogi, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 1:58am

   
   

   Hasn't this basically been the function of the mainstream press for years - just to publish information that is purposely leaked to it by government officials? Isn't that "reporting".

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: What's new?

   

   MarksAngel (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 2:02am

   
   

   Well it's suppose to be their function, somehow though I think it's gotten lost behind big money and pay offs...lol.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 2:27am

   
   

   What's neat about Wikileaks is if the rumors are true, they were probably leaked or at least filtered through neo-cons.
   
   Myself and others like E.J. Dionne agree in centrism.
   
   NeoCon ideology is based in liberal ideology. Later in life, most liberals were driven to conservatism because they believed that liberalism failed.
   
   NeoCons just want a hug. Do you need a hug? Find someone who was an asshole to you and give them a hug.
   
   While Mike was visiting the Intel booth at CES, watching Will.I.Am, I was a row across at Monster Cables.
   
   See?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Kurata, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 2:46am

   
   

   Though they might make their own Wikileaks, i'm actually afraid of hwo it'll work, considering it's an american newspaper.
   While I do not know how the American system works, if the newspaper actually gets subsidies from the State, I'm afraid the government might cut them, and put into danger the NY Times, which might have to either give out the idendities of the "leakers" or just outright stop this experiment.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 3:07am

   
   

   I remember the time that people laughed about Wikileaks, I saw people write "that is a place for conspiracy nutts", that is all gone now, after the U.S. government freaked out, everybody take it seriously today.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 3:08am

   
   

   Exactly, Kurata.
   
   There exists somewhere out there a full series of television shows about how US television has taken the train to nutso town. I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow the BBC funded it, and..
   
   Whoops, where did this come from:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aEk864YrKw

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Re:

   

   Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 3:53am

   
   

   Whoops, where did this come from:

   Haha hahahaha HA H... wait a second.... Actually that's pretty distubing.
   
   Though I'm actually not sure which is worse, this kind of frothing blatently biased rhetoric which shouldn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it and wants to shout "right on" at the TV a lot, or the more insidious "editorial slant" that does the same thing in the UK media. Unless of course it's just to me it's blatant and the target audience (presumably in the US) actually think it's just enthusiasm.
   
   Either way you have to be impressed with the descriptive:
   "DystopianFutureSciFiSatiricalShoutyPornSledghammerChanne­l Fox News"

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re:

   

   The eejit (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 3:53am

   
   

   IT has haunting mirrors to a Shakespearean play, and an awful novel series by J.K. Rowling.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 4:02am

    
    

    I want the talking oven glove LoL

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 4:11am

    
    

    ???
    
    Is that the Davos play thing?
    
    Medvedev quote:
    

    "At the end of the day, I believe that this WikiLeaks story should make the spirit of international relations healthier, even if in itself this is an illegal activity in the understanding of several states."

    
    
    Source: CNN: Russia doesn't need 'lecturing,' Medvedev says at Davos forum

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Not an electronic Rodent, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 4:16am

    
    

    I want the talking oven glove LoL

    Something likeThis?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Re:

    

    princefeliz (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 4:34am

    
    

    This is the way I see it. "If you can't beat your enemies, join them."

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 5:17am

    
    

    Approximate translation:
    
    "They didn't get anything big on us, they got big on everyone else, so hahaha, quit lecturing us about security and personal freedoms, jackwagons, and enjoy the roasting on Wikileaks."

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 5:20am

    
    

    As for the NYT, well, let's just say they do run some risks. Creating an outlet like this may encourage people to break the law to get them material, which is an issue. But I think the bigger risk is in the big fake leak, where someone concocts a series of documents that fall in line with things that have been already made public (dates, times, places, whatever) that tell a big fat line to make someone look bad.
    
    If the NYT or others are not careful, they could end up publishing lies, and put themselves in legal jeopardy.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    cc (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 5:27am

    
    

    Ok, but will this be inside or outside the paywall? :P

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 6:22am

    
    

    "If the NYT or others are not careful, they could end up publishing lies, and put themselves in legal jeopardy."
    
    Gasp and horror, a newspaper publishing lies and unsubstantiated rumours as if they were fact without proper background checking? That would be unprecedented!
    
    /Sarc

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 6:31am

    
    

    Liberalism this, conservatism that.... it's funny how you irrationally assume that a title alone removes all ability to be correct. People who talk like this can't even begin to discuss politics rationally because you're too terrified of being in the "wrong" camp above everything else.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Overcast (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 7:34am

    
    

    This way the 'official media' will only disseminate 'official' leaks to the public that have been state approved first.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    The eejit (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 8:12am

    
    

    I was more referring to the 'giving your enemy the tools to end you with.' And byt hat I mean destroy.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    Re:

    

    Christopher (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 8:49am

    
    

    Well, after they had GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS saying that the things that they had been saying and pointing out for years were right on the part of 'conspiracy nuts'..... they couldn't really keep saying that without getting a backhand to the face from the SMART Americans who hadn't been brainwashed with American exceptionalism.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 10:11am

    
    

    "It's been funny watching critics of Wikileaks assume that if Julian Assange was somehow takendown, or that Wikileaks itself was somehow taken offline, that this concept of intermediaries to help publish leaked documents would somehow go away"
    
    Let the straw man building begin!!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 10:18am

    
    

    I've been trying to publish a new saying and get it circulating:
    
    Only in America can it be patriotic to screw over people just so your party can be 'right'.
    
    Glad someone agrees with me.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 10:32am

    
    

    What I find funny is that one day the NYT is the most clueless company in the world, the grand builders of walled gardens, and the next day they are innovative and on the cutting edge.
    
    Make you minds up already.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    Re:

    

    Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 10:53am

    
    

    Well, you see, we look at the world as more than just black and white... well, most of us do, anyway.
    
    There's nothing that says a company can't do good things and also still do stupid things. There's nothing that says innovation (which the paywall idea could be considered a part of) has to be good ideas. The nuclear bomb was 'innovative', but I think it's safe to say it was a bad idea.
    
    And if you read the article, you'll see that Mike is addressing the fact that mainstream media is doing something, NYT is just the first one to do so.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    RadialSkid (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 11:09am

    
    

    Given the amount of bald-faced propaganda that the New York Times has published against Wikileaks (or more accurately, Julian Assange), I don't think I would trust the NYT with any sensitive material, or to protect the sources of said material.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2011 @ 3:40pm

    
    

    How would he know? He shouldn't be looking at the NYT is he believes in what he writes here, as the NYT is an evil walled garden building waste of an old media hag that should be taken out back and shot like an old horse that can't pull it's weight anymore.
    
    So what was he looking at over there?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    techflaws.org (profile), Jan 27th, 2011 @ 10:20pm

    
    

    Well, putting word's into people's mouth doesn't work so well for you, is it?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 28th, 2011 @ 2:51am

    
    

    People who talk like this can't even begin to discuss politics rationally because you're too terrified of being in the "wrong" camp above everything else.
    
    A lot of people like to be told what to think. They pick a party, and then rely on it to tell them what to think, because thinking for themselves is too hard.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    Re: Re: Re:

    

    Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 28th, 2011 @ 5:57am

    
    

    Do you feel emptier now that you've pulled something that big out of your ass? Relieved?
    
    Seriously man, if you want to take what Mike writes about the ludicrousness of a pay-wall and stretch it all the way to "he thinks they should be put down", you have issues.
    
    Just... wow.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment