Wikileaks.org website published some vietnam releases files papers btw united states on homepage.
Unites states will not be glad of this Whistle Blower wikileaks.org website.
Wikileaks, Pentagon Papers and Vietnam:
“It all sounds like Vietnam all over again.”
That’s what political activist and author Steve Otto, along with a growing number of people, is saying about the recent release of over 91,000 classified documents on the Afghanistan War.
“The parallels to the Vietnam War could not be much closer,” Otto wrote in a July 28 op-ed piece in the Examiner.com. “Afghanistan is a war that is losing popularity. The leaked material shows that the war is not going well. It also reveals that civilians are being killed with reckless disregard. It all sounds like Vietnam all over again.”
Not so fast, say many media observers and commentators.
“The latest release — from an international organization called WikiLeaks through three news outlets — has, according to quick review by experts on the Afghan War, uncovered little new, but rather fleshes out old stories with eyewitness accounts of various military failures and excesses,” wrote syndicated columnist Jules Witcover in a July 28 piece for The Baltimore Sun.
And some, including members of the Obama Administration, believe the release of these documents put people’s lives at risk.
“WikiLeaks.org, whose founder, Julian Assange, seems to be more interested in notoriety than truth, has acted irresponsibly,” wrote Patricia DeGennaro, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, wrote in a July 28 op-ed piece in the Huffington Post.
Despite valid concerns on all sides, I think it’s an exciting time for journalists. Exciting because the content of these documents, new or not new, gives us — the press and the public — something to talk, or even fight about. And healthy discourse, I believe, is what our public deserves — before we make decisions that affect so many other people’s lives.
“Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, and after weighing the risks and public interest, we sometimes chose not to publish,” The New York Times in its note to readers. “But there are times when the information is of significant public interest, and this is one of those times. The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not.”
Note: The NYT was one of three major news outlets (the Guardian and Der Spiegel) given early access to the documents. At the moment, the reports can be viewed at WikiLeaks. The Guardian writes that we should expect more revelations from Wikileaks soon.
For a good laugh, check out editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore’s “Frenemies.”
The Ballot Box: WikiLeaks and Vietnam envy:
Depending on where you sit, Sunday’s massive document dump posted on WikiLeaks is either a “move on, there’s nothing to see here” event, a national crisis or a clown show.
On Monday, the Pentagon announced that the Afghan war logs do not compromise national security. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs characterized the leaks as “alarming.” In the third ring of the media maelstrom circus, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made the ominous announcement that there are more documents to come.
Today the Pentagon adopted a more urgent tone. Col. Dave Lapan, a Defense Department spokesman, said the military may need weeks to review all the records to determine “the potential damage to the lives of our service members and coalition partners.”
At least the Pentagon is now in line with its own melodramatic stance last month, when reports surfaced that investigators were launching an international manhunt for the WikiLeaks founder, a search that evidently proved unsuccessful despite the fact that Assange, an Australian citizen, travels frequently on a regular passport, participates panel discussions and accepts requests for interviews. Indeed, Assange was the subject of a recent lengthy and fawning profile in the New Yorker. Perhaps if the Pentagon had really wanted to track him down they could have asked CNN’s booking department for Assange’s number. Sadly, life is usually not as exciting as a Robert Ludlum novel. Julian Assange is no Jason Bourne.
While governments continue wringing their hands and chasing their tails, let’s consider what the documents reveal about the U.S. and NATO’s misadventures in South Asia: The war in Afghanistan is a mess. Corruption is endemic. Elements within the ISI were and continue to be in cahoots with the Taliban. Musharraf’s government punked the Bush administration on more than one occasion. These facts come as no surprise to anyone with a shred of curiosity and access to the Internet.
Since the start of the conflict in Afghanistan, American news organizations have routinely patted themselves on the back and lavished each other with awards for the brave, comprehensive war coverage provided by scruffy, unbathed embedded reporters.
So why are American editors and journalists so breathless about these leaks? Presumably the information contained in the document dump should have been old news to such seasoned hands.
One word: Vietnam.
Many of the editors and managers of American news organizations came of age during the Vietnam War. Many did not serve. They may have marched against the war. But they were too young to get involved in the pivotal journalistic event that changed the direction of the war and led to one of the great First Amendment showdowns in American history: The release of the Pentagon Papers.
Oh, to be employed by the New York Times or the Washington Post back then. Intrigue. Lawsuits. Indictments. The Supreme Court ruling. Richard Nixon on the ropes. Source Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office broken into by Nixon’s thugs. A time when journalism was bold, when men were men (metaphorically speaking), when publishers backed tough decisions and journalists had the power to change history. A time when reporters and their editors gave The Man the middle finger. A time when journalists didn’t consider themselves to be members of the PR wing of the Pentagon.
Contrary to folklore and wishful thinking there has never been a Golden Age of Journalism. But every day new opportunities arise for working journalists to demonstrate the fighting spirit of their predecessors. So what do they do when confronted with a tough story, or handed a scoop on a silver platter? Fold like tents, blame their lousy coverage on “budget cuts, “cave to the powers that be, blather about not wanting to “alienate their sources” and ask Dad for Permission to proceed. Here’s what the New York Times Executive Editor had to say about his paper’s responsibility to its readership with regards to the WikiLeaks information:
“…in our discussions prior to the publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care, and asked us to urge WikiLeaks to withhold information that could cost lives. We did pass along that message.”
This from a man whose publication was one of three (Der Spiegel and the Guardian being the others) that was spoon fed the documents by WikiLeaks a month prior to publication, who now says his paper asked the source to cool his jets.
This from the man who described Paul Wolfowitz as “The Sunshine Warrior,” an establishment-coddling and spectacularly naiveIraq war supporter and the editor who was ultimately responsible for granting prime above the fold newspaper real estate to serial fabricator Judith Miller to publish the propaganda lovingly provided by neocons.
So while Bill Keller frets over his responsibilities as the editor of the Paper of Record and, perhaps, wonders how his reporters were scooped by an Australian computer hacker, maybe he and his fellow baby boomer colleagues should strip away the romance of the Pentagon Papers episode and instead focus on the hard work, sacrifice, suffering and bravery it took to publish the truth.
Thank you,documents collected by vuxuanhien
Sỏuce
Unites states will not be glad of this Whistle Blower wikileaks.org website.
Wikileaks, Pentagon Papers and Vietnam:
“It all sounds like Vietnam all over again.”
That’s what political activist and author Steve Otto, along with a growing number of people, is saying about the recent release of over 91,000 classified documents on the Afghanistan War.
“The parallels to the Vietnam War could not be much closer,” Otto wrote in a July 28 op-ed piece in the Examiner.com. “Afghanistan is a war that is losing popularity. The leaked material shows that the war is not going well. It also reveals that civilians are being killed with reckless disregard. It all sounds like Vietnam all over again.”
Not so fast, say many media observers and commentators.
“The latest release — from an international organization called WikiLeaks through three news outlets — has, according to quick review by experts on the Afghan War, uncovered little new, but rather fleshes out old stories with eyewitness accounts of various military failures and excesses,” wrote syndicated columnist Jules Witcover in a July 28 piece for The Baltimore Sun.
And some, including members of the Obama Administration, believe the release of these documents put people’s lives at risk.
“WikiLeaks.org, whose founder, Julian Assange, seems to be more interested in notoriety than truth, has acted irresponsibly,” wrote Patricia DeGennaro, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, wrote in a July 28 op-ed piece in the Huffington Post.
Despite valid concerns on all sides, I think it’s an exciting time for journalists. Exciting because the content of these documents, new or not new, gives us — the press and the public — something to talk, or even fight about. And healthy discourse, I believe, is what our public deserves — before we make decisions that affect so many other people’s lives.
“Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, and after weighing the risks and public interest, we sometimes chose not to publish,” The New York Times in its note to readers. “But there are times when the information is of significant public interest, and this is one of those times. The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not.”
Note: The NYT was one of three major news outlets (the Guardian and Der Spiegel) given early access to the documents. At the moment, the reports can be viewed at WikiLeaks. The Guardian writes that we should expect more revelations from Wikileaks soon.
For a good laugh, check out editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore’s “Frenemies.”
The Ballot Box: WikiLeaks and Vietnam envy:
Depending on where you sit, Sunday’s massive document dump posted on WikiLeaks is either a “move on, there’s nothing to see here” event, a national crisis or a clown show.
On Monday, the Pentagon announced that the Afghan war logs do not compromise national security. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs characterized the leaks as “alarming.” In the third ring of the media maelstrom circus, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made the ominous announcement that there are more documents to come.
Today the Pentagon adopted a more urgent tone. Col. Dave Lapan, a Defense Department spokesman, said the military may need weeks to review all the records to determine “the potential damage to the lives of our service members and coalition partners.”
At least the Pentagon is now in line with its own melodramatic stance last month, when reports surfaced that investigators were launching an international manhunt for the WikiLeaks founder, a search that evidently proved unsuccessful despite the fact that Assange, an Australian citizen, travels frequently on a regular passport, participates panel discussions and accepts requests for interviews. Indeed, Assange was the subject of a recent lengthy and fawning profile in the New Yorker. Perhaps if the Pentagon had really wanted to track him down they could have asked CNN’s booking department for Assange’s number. Sadly, life is usually not as exciting as a Robert Ludlum novel. Julian Assange is no Jason Bourne.
While governments continue wringing their hands and chasing their tails, let’s consider what the documents reveal about the U.S. and NATO’s misadventures in South Asia: The war in Afghanistan is a mess. Corruption is endemic. Elements within the ISI were and continue to be in cahoots with the Taliban. Musharraf’s government punked the Bush administration on more than one occasion. These facts come as no surprise to anyone with a shred of curiosity and access to the Internet.
Since the start of the conflict in Afghanistan, American news organizations have routinely patted themselves on the back and lavished each other with awards for the brave, comprehensive war coverage provided by scruffy, unbathed embedded reporters.
So why are American editors and journalists so breathless about these leaks? Presumably the information contained in the document dump should have been old news to such seasoned hands.
One word: Vietnam.
Many of the editors and managers of American news organizations came of age during the Vietnam War. Many did not serve. They may have marched against the war. But they were too young to get involved in the pivotal journalistic event that changed the direction of the war and led to one of the great First Amendment showdowns in American history: The release of the Pentagon Papers.
Oh, to be employed by the New York Times or the Washington Post back then. Intrigue. Lawsuits. Indictments. The Supreme Court ruling. Richard Nixon on the ropes. Source Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office broken into by Nixon’s thugs. A time when journalism was bold, when men were men (metaphorically speaking), when publishers backed tough decisions and journalists had the power to change history. A time when reporters and their editors gave The Man the middle finger. A time when journalists didn’t consider themselves to be members of the PR wing of the Pentagon.
Contrary to folklore and wishful thinking there has never been a Golden Age of Journalism. But every day new opportunities arise for working journalists to demonstrate the fighting spirit of their predecessors. So what do they do when confronted with a tough story, or handed a scoop on a silver platter? Fold like tents, blame their lousy coverage on “budget cuts, “cave to the powers that be, blather about not wanting to “alienate their sources” and ask Dad for Permission to proceed. Here’s what the New York Times Executive Editor had to say about his paper’s responsibility to its readership with regards to the WikiLeaks information:
“…in our discussions prior to the publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care, and asked us to urge WikiLeaks to withhold information that could cost lives. We did pass along that message.”
This from a man whose publication was one of three (Der Spiegel and the Guardian being the others) that was spoon fed the documents by WikiLeaks a month prior to publication, who now says his paper asked the source to cool his jets.
This from the man who described Paul Wolfowitz as “The Sunshine Warrior,” an establishment-coddling and spectacularly naiveIraq war supporter and the editor who was ultimately responsible for granting prime above the fold newspaper real estate to serial fabricator Judith Miller to publish the propaganda lovingly provided by neocons.
So while Bill Keller frets over his responsibilities as the editor of the Paper of Record and, perhaps, wonders how his reporters were scooped by an Australian computer hacker, maybe he and his fellow baby boomer colleagues should strip away the romance of the Pentagon Papers episode and instead focus on the hard work, sacrifice, suffering and bravery it took to publish the truth.
Thank you,documents collected by vuxuanhien
Sỏuce
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét