Journalism

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
journalism, wikileaks



Why Are US Publications Downplaying The Significance Of Some Of Wikileaks' Leaks?

from the they-know-which-side-their-bread-is-buttered-on dept

We still can't quite figure out why the story of US contractors in Afghanistan pimping little boys to law enforcement officials doesn't seem to get nearly the sort of attention in the press that Wikileaks itself gets, even though Wikileaks is what revealed the actions by Dyncorp. In fact, some are noticing that the US press seems to be downplaying many of the revelations in the diplomatic cables that have been released so far. Karl Bode points us to an interesting report that highlights how a bunch of big name publications have tried to play down the leaks, listing out stories in Time, the NY Times, Newsweek, the Washington Post and elsewhere that all say the leaks have really only shown that US diplomats are effective at their jobs.

But then it lists out a whole bunch of things that have been found in the leaks so far (and, remember, less than 1% of the cables have actually been released), that all seem like pretty big stories, that haven't received much attention at all. Many of them do get one or two stories, and that's it. This includes multiple stories of US officials basically working to obstruct foreign governments from responding to various misdeeds by representatives of the US. There are also numerous examples of US officials disobeying agreements with other countries and believing bad intelligence. But, for whatever reason, that's just not as interesting as the story of the organization that helped reveal that information?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re:

    Is there one shred of evidence that they are entirely true? Are there any supporting documents (outside of the system)? Anyone backing the data up? Anyone confirming the stories?

    What happens if the US (and their allies) set Mannig up with 250,000 fake documents?

    You don't know. The media doesn't either, and outside of the stuff on wikileaks itself, they have no way to confirm any of it. Heck, Manning and Assange could have made this up. You never know.

    The only one really running with it is the UK Guardian, who are Assange's semi-official fanclub. Otherwise, everyone else, after the initial burst, is pretty much staying away from it.

    Wake me up where wikileaks publishes the charges against Assange and leaks his interviews with the police. Until then, it is a censored site like any other.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.