Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of “manufactured dissent”. It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation
Wikileaks and their founder, Julian Assange have been the focus of intense media scrutiny for what has been dubbed the “New Pentagon Papers.” With all the attention focused on how they received the information and what it means, most media outlets have overlooked some very important questions. Who is Julian Assange and how has Wikileaks managed to out run both the CIA and NSA? Why has the world elite stood by and let a group fronted by a former hacker release information that is perceived to damage them? Is it possible that Wikileaks has been set up as a shill group, used to spread misinformation on a massive scale?
Unanswered questions regarding the nature and organizational structure of Wikileaks
Be sure to check out WikiRebels – The Documentary.
It is a rough-cut of the first in-depth documentary on WikiLeaks and the people behind it. Swedish Television reporters Jesper Huor and Bosse Lindquist investigate.
There is only one thing more dangerous than a fundamentalist Neo-conservative, and that’s a naive liberal. In the wake of the demolition of the modern, somewhat mythological illusory icon Barrack Obama, people who identify themselves as liberal watchdogs have been left wanting for a new hero.
Enter the Messiah 2.0, the silver haired saviour, one Julian Assange. The ascent and timing of the Wikileaks phenomenon could not be more scripted and perfect. This magnificent digital cloud has literally captured the minds of eternally frustrated people the world over- frustrated by war, corruption and the endless cloak and dagger exploits of our leaders. The uploading of 250,000 “secret cables” threatened to bring down the corrupt Washington Establishment. In reality however, it has done nothing of the sort, bizarrely bolstering the status quo.
Despite public perceptions, Wikileaks does not make the material it receives available directly to the public. It sends the documents to newspapers, which decide what news is fit to print. As of this writing, Dec 2, 2010, four days after the New York Times and other newspapers began publishing scores of articles; Wikileaks has only posted 623 of the 250,000 documents they claim to have released to their website. (2) Neither the New York Times, the Guardian or the other newspapers apparently in possession of these materials have published them either.
Worse, these 623 ‘leaks’ were apparently cleared by the State Department itself. According to noted American civil rights attorney Michael Ratner, “In the recent disclosure, Wikileaks has only posted cables that were reviewed by the news organisations and in some cases redacted. The news organisations showed them to the Pentagon and agreed to some of the government’s suggested redactions.”
Just a little more background on the “hero” Julian Assange and Wikileaks… Wikileaks was started up in Dec. of 2006. Oddly enough, as a supposed “leak” site, a dissident site, it was given a great deal of immediate mainstream attention from the likes of the Washington Post, TIME magazine, and even Cass Sunstein the now infamous Obama administration who wrote a paper on how to “cognitively infiltrate” dissident groups in order to steer them in a direction that is useful to the powers that be. The TIME magazine article is curious because it seems that right off the bat they were telling us how to interpret Wikileaks in such a way that sounded strangely familiar to George W. Bush back just after 9/11… “By March, more than one million leaked documents from governments and corporations in Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Bloc will be available online in a bold new collective experiment in whistle-blowing. That is, of course, as long as you don’t accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks.org could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency. “TIME Jan. 2007
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website, Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange’s “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment