|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Bernie Goldberg Fires Back|
And that is me for the weekend. No internet news. No nothing.
Only one last thought. If you compare all of the accounts that were published (and yes, I did read the Vanity Fair "article", which was a lot more of a corporate blowjob to the Guardian than anything else, I read Bill Keller's New York Times piece as well, so don't think I wasn't aware of them prior to claiming that the Spiegel exposed something, even inadvertendly), if you do that like a lawyer, no, wait, no, don't do it like a lawyer, do it like you are a proper journalist...
... you will find a great many things that are wrong, especially in the claims made by the New York Times. What made the Spiegel piece so invaluable is the notion that Guardian's investigative chief didn't "shrewdly" invite Heather Brooke, as the Vanity Fair article claims.
In fact, the decision to put her under contract was made by all corporate parties present on November 1, after Assange had left, with the specific corporate intent to keep the cables out of the public domain and solely controlled by the consortium.
What Assange is guilty of? That he allowed that to happen. For whatever reason, he allowed corporate, monetary interests to supercede the spread of the documents to other media.
Note that the time line doesn't match up, with that "loose" alliance between Brooke and the Guardian. And that her name in all three time lines appears only in October. Note that it somehow must be strange that she claims to have worked on the WikiLeaks cables for "months", and that she has produced only a handful of articles, in December of 2010.And those were articles of the very tabloid kind that make them irrelevant.
Note that the estranged WikiLeaks supporter specifically leaked the cables to her, to what intent, if she was already working with the Guardian? What is the point of leaking something to somebody who by their very affiliation should already be in the possession of said documents?
Note how the only times prior to her appearance at the Guardian that she is involved with WikiLeaks in the UK is as a pundit, and the only articles by her are, gosh, can you say it with me, kids? In the Comment is Free section. Even her TV appearances are not that of a journalist, but that of a talking head. You know, the kind. "And here, joining is is Heather Brooke, author of... blah blah blah... Heather, even if you are not actually involved in the whole thing, let me still ask your opinion on stuff."
Note how Heather Brooke (but also the guys who are now in charge of Open Leaks and many others) claim that governments have no right to "protect" their "secrets", but corporations do.
Considering that it is corporations who - sometimes even illegally - influence and/or outright buy governmental decisions, that is kind of a strange argument to make, now, is it?
But then again, the decision to keep the cables all to themselves and buy off Heather Brooke was not ever a journalistic one. As the Spiegel piece shows, it was a corporate level decision, to protect their, what was that, kids? Ah, yes, their competitive edge on the market.
And yes, of course, they will all claim that it was done to protect the lives of the innocent and preserve journalistic integrity, balh blah blah, no, it wasn't. It was to benefit themselves, or can anybody tell me why the journalistic integrity at Norway's Aftonbladet is so much worse than that of the Guardian? What? Because you can't speak Norwegian, and everything in English is automatically better? Or is it because we all have books to sell...
... with Heather Brooke already, what was that word again, ah, yes, "shrewdly" naming her column in the Guardian, you know, the one that was published on November 29, after the book that she will publish in 2011, named The Revolution will be digitised. Only 208 days to go, reserve your copy now, for there she will "discuss" her role in what happened on November 1!
That is not journalism. That is a whore pimping her wares.
Buy me! Buy me! Buy me!
Incidentally, if your book is only 256 pages long and deals with the overall subject of data journalism and its methods and implications, Heather, honey, take it from somebody who knows, I wrote my thesis on this when the internet was still in the stone age, and people worked on Windows 95, and when I had to do the hard work without "Da Google" or "Da Wikipedia"...
...you ain't going to tell the reader anything of grave importance. Or of importance in the sense of media criticism or media analysis. But maybe you can get a few things in there, like, oh, I don't know, wait, no, I do know...
... make a Stieg Larsson comparison, will you?
Because, gosh, your book publication date and David Fincher's remake release are damn close, you can ride it all the way to orgasmic PR bliss. Tell us again, like Bill Keller, how Assange could have walked out of the Millnnium trilogy. Please, please pretty please. Because we all need to have that.
Oh, and Heather? Meeting somebody doesn't mean you know them. I have met many people in my life. I have met Sheryl Crow. I talked to Christina Aguilera. I played video games with N'Sync. I sang with Jennifer Lopez (or was that Mariah Carey? I don't remember. I was dreadfully drunk at the time, and I have a hard time separating the two even when sober) standing at a piano in a hotel in Stockholm after the MTV Europe Awards.
Doesn't mean a thing.
When did you meet Assange for the first time? Were you working alongside him? Couldn't have been, because according to all three varied accounts of what happened, Assange was furious that somebody had given the cable documents to you. Oh, how odd. And your Twitter acccount before you got involved with the Guardian is pretty much like any other Twitter account, with an occasional update on WikiLeaks, but nothing personal (see, Twitter is bad) in relation to it. And you were soooo good in telling the world all about your other trips, including but not limited to the kind of drinks you were having. How odd.
As for Mr. Leigh, the head of the Guardian's investigative department? Here's a question. You gave the full copy of the cable documents to the New York Times, why exactly? Was it - a reported by the Spiegel - you feared that the British government would come down on you and prevent them from being published in Britain? Or is it how Bill Keller "remembers"?
David Leigh, The Guardian’s investigations editor, concluded that these rogue leaks released The Guardian from any pledge, and he gave us the cables.Everybody lies, my favourite television doctor would now say.
The question is not who, but when and why.
And I am tired of this crap now. Again. And again. I'm tired of it, and I know that nobody will care, and nobody will investigate it. And hey, I'm just a writer these days. Why should I do their work? I gave pointers to a few people, but in the end?
What was it that Edward Murrow said?
This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts.He was right. It was 53 years ago, and he was right. That is why I included the clip from the Daily Show. I fully support Jon Stewart's conclusion at the end of said clip.