5 ms·

> The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. I disagree strongly with y

by samfoo 16y ago

> The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. I disagree strongly with you. The NYT (as an example) has entire pages dedicated on their website for both the war logs and and diplomatic cables. Even several days ago their front page (print) story was from the leaks. The media is not dropping the ball on this, it's just that alternative media talking heads desperately want them to drop the ball and so just keep saying that they have. Like it or not, Julian is the face of Wikileaks and his eccentricities and the intrigue surrounding him is part of the story. A compelling part. One that gets more people reading about this than otherwise would have. Reporting isn't just about telling facts no matter how unbiased a reporter or news establishment might be. This is precisely why Wikileaks releases raw data to their media partners for analysis under an embargo in the first place; analysis which comes with some bias. Would you consider it good reporting if the media were to never address the rape allegations when interviewing Assange? Even if they're fabricated? > In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know". Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere.

jeremymims 16y ago
- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people. - I've noted a few articles in the previous comment that make the assertion that nothing new was released by Wikileaks in the article headlines. Most people don't really read beyond those anyway. - Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables. Since the cables were transmitted to Wikileaks, vetted by select media partners, and released, no one has accused him of either fabricating or falsifying anything contained in these leaks. The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information. It'd be like me writing: Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". True, but irrelevant.
- samfoo 16y ago
  > - Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people. So your argument is: "Most people don't realize that there's a difference between opinion and reporting, so there isn't one."? I don't accept that people can't distinguish, and even if true, I don't accept that it makes any difference in the truth. There is also a difference between real new organizations -- viz. print -- and cable news. Even on Fox News, however (note: I don't watch cable news frequently, I'm assuming this is still the case), their opinion shows are clearly separate from their actual reporting. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends all discuss the news but aren't reporting it. > Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables. Forgive me, but, It's a bit offensive to the reporters at the New Yorker, or the Times, or the NYT to imply that such a story is easy and lazy. You make it sound like the two stories are mutually exclusive and it's not as it the cables themselves are being ignored by anyone. > The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information. I'm not sure how major media outlets are implying that it does tain the leaked information. If you can see that, what makes you think that others can't? > Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I honestly don't know how you can't see that there's an ethical difference between what you said and the bias it contains and reporting that Julian Assange is accused of rape. If Obama were accused of rape and tried to pass DADT, you can bet it would be reported on too. Like it or not, the world doesn't organize itself into self-contained encapsulated segments of information. Humanity and human faces are a part of reporting, one that drives more people to know about things like the leaks than otherwise would have.
towelrod 16y ago
>Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere. For example, http://www.slate.com/id/2261780/ http://www.slate.com/id/2261780/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10781413 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10781413 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072601570.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072604626.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html
- nir 16y ago
  Half these stories report the US government saying the leaks aren't that important, the other half are op ed columns saying the same. The BBC, WaPo, NYT and Slate all covered the leaks extensively. What would you expect them to do? Not report on any comments that downplay the leaks' importance? Ban op eds with this opinion? Reporting on WikiLeaks in a way that'll satisfy the Greenwald crowd seems to require a North Korean style of journalism.

by samfoo 16y ago

jeremymims 16y ago

- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people. - I've noted a few articles in the previous comment that make the assertion that nothing new was released by Wikileaks in the article headlines. Most people don't really read beyond those anyway. - Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables. Since the cables were transmitted to Wikileaks, vetted by select media partners, and released, no one has accused him of either fabricating or falsifying anything contained in these leaks. The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information. It'd be like me writing: Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". True, but irrelevant.

samfoo 16y ago
> - Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people. So your argument is: "Most people don't realize that there's a difference between opinion and reporting, so there isn't one."? I don't accept that people can't distinguish, and even if true, I don't accept that it makes any difference in the truth. There is also a difference between real new organizations -- viz. print -- and cable news. Even on Fox News, however (note: I don't watch cable news frequently, I'm assuming this is still the case), their opinion shows are clearly separate from their actual reporting. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends all discuss the news but aren't reporting it. > Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables. Forgive me, but, It's a bit offensive to the reporters at the New Yorker, or the Times, or the NYT to imply that such a story is easy and lazy. You make it sound like the two stories are mutually exclusive and it's not as it the cables themselves are being ignored by anyone. > The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information. I'm not sure how major media outlets are implying that it does tain the leaked information. If you can see that, what makes you think that others can't? > Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I honestly don't know how you can't see that there's an ethical difference between what you said and the bias it contains and reporting that Julian Assange is accused of rape. If Obama were accused of rape and tried to pass DADT, you can bet it would be reported on too. Like it or not, the world doesn't organize itself into self-contained encapsulated segments of information. Humanity and human faces are a part of reporting, one that drives more people to know about things like the leaks than otherwise would have.

towelrod 16y ago

>Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere. For example, http://www.slate.com/id/2261780/ http://www.slate.com/id/2261780/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10781413 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10781413 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072601570.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072604626.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html

nir 16y ago
Half these stories report the US government saying the leaks aren't that important, the other half are op ed columns saying the same. The BBC, WaPo, NYT and Slate all covered the leaks extensively. What would you expect them to do? Not report on any comments that downplay the leaks' importance? Ban op eds with this opinion? Reporting on WikiLeaks in a way that'll satisfy the Greenwald crowd seems to require a North Korean style of journalism.