January 11, 2011


Of course American "journalists" back away from WikiLeaks, as a new report by one of the few good news serives, McClatchy, shows. Read the whole thing. It is scary. And it is sickening.

But my personal favorite? This quote here.
The problem with speaking up for WikiLeaks now, said Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, one of the country's most prominent defenders of press freedom and one of the groups that backed WikiLeaks in its 2008 court case, is that she doesn't consider Assange to be a journalist.

Assange, she said, "has done some things that journalists do, but I would argue that what the New York Times does is more journalism. They vet the information. . . . They consider outside sources. They take responsibility. They publicly identify themselves. . . .They do some value added. They do something original to it," Dalglish said.

She added that part of her hesitation to back Assange is that the public knows so little about him and how he acquires information.
WikiLeaks "takes secrets. But they are secretive. We don't know who they are. I think one thing journalists pride themselves on is transparency. I think people are a little apprehensive because he was releasing information last summer he had an agenda to bring down the U.S. government," she said. "I think that makes people reluctant to jump into making a statement.
Hey, lady. The New York Times is transparent? Really? Are you fucking kidding me? What about Fox News? Have you ever seen the documentary Outfoxed? American "journalists" have standards? Are you fucking kidding me?

Let me tell you something about how a journalistic entity works. There is a massive amount of self-censorship going on. And don't you dare tell me otherwise. I was in editorial positions, and I observed and watched. There are more stories killed by the call of the ad and/or marketing department than you would believe. Reviews are being paid for, a lot. Radio stations take bribes to play certain music, gosh, no, really? Journalists don't identify their sources, especially when said sources are from the government and/or a political party and/or a big corporation, they give "interviews" on the condition of anomity.

You mean the incredible sourcing of something like this, by NYMag? When these oh so super-awesome banker CEOs dropped a character assassination quote into an article, but please, no names, we are Wall Street?
“It was like the White House said, ‘Okay, we lost Massachusetts, health care is screwed, so let’s go after Wall Street,’ ” says the CEO of one of the nation’s biggest banks. “And for a lot of Wall Street people, it was like, ‘Okay, first you slap us in the face, now you kick us in the balls. Enough is enough. I mean, we’re done.’ ”
Lady, you have the balls to lecture WikiLeaks on transparency? Really? When this, what I just quoted here, is the norm for American "journalism"? Where the guilty are protected, but the innocent are supposed to stand tall with their names?

Are you fucking kidding me?

You are "uncomfortable" with the way WikiLeaks obtained the documents? You mean, oh gosh, leaking is bad? Exposing criminal behaviour is bad? Are you sure you are not working for the ministry of propaganda? And hey, how about that Bob Woodward? How about the New York TImes using anonymous sources themselves? Are you "uncomfortable" there?
No, of course you are not, because they belong to your little club, meetings are on Sunday, bring your own beer. Are you kidding me?

And don't quote the New York Times, lady. Don't you dare.

I have two words for you with regards to the New York Times.

Judith Miller.