Gosh, the "wuy isun't wikileaks transparunt" meme will not die will it?

howard112211

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:31 AM
Original message

Gosh, the "wuy isun't wikileaks transparunt" meme will not die will it?

Gosh it is dumb. It is so dumb, it is beyond dumb.

The reason is:because. they. protect. their. sources.

How the hell should a "transparent" wikileaks function? "Umm, yeah, so we have this sensitive material here. Which our employee X obtained from dissident Y at location Z, and we will release it, um, when everybody in the country has read it so we can first obtain a democratic mandate by a majority to release it".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

YellowRubberDuckie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:31 AM
Response to Original message

1. If stuff is still leaking, doesn't that mean that the kid they are torturing...

...is innocent? Just saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

yodermon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #1

11. as I understand it, WL plus the other news orgs that have the cables

have *not* done a complete public release (dump) of all the information.
They are dribbling it out over time, usually when a news story surfaces that the cables can "expand" on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevenleser

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:35 AM
Response to Original message

2. Can't explain away the idea that the organization that tries to force transparency isn't transparent

Edited on Fri May-13-11 09:35 AM by stevenleser

You just can't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

polly7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. I can.

I think of them as an investigative news source that has the right to protect the anonymity of its sources, just as does any other. The only difference between them and mainstream media news is, they're publishing what none of the rest have the courage to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

howard112211

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. That doesn't even make any sense. Why should they be? They are not "forcing transparency" per se.

Edited on Fri May-13-11 09:45 AM by howard112211

They are "forcing transparency" of governments, or powerful cooperations. They are neither.

This whole discussion reeks of circular logic. Kind of like asking why the antidote to a poison does not work as an antidote to an overdose of itsself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

xchrom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. +1

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevenleser

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #4

7. You can spin as much as you want, this hypocrisy is impossible to resolve.

Everyone has excuses for not being 100% transparent. Wikileaks is basically saying that those excuses are not OK for anyone else but them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

howard112211

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #7

9. No, they are not saying that.

Any quotes, links, articles that would suggest such a thing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevenleser

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. I have tens of thousands of leaks made without apology that say that. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

yodermon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #7

12. Is wikileaks arguing that other news orgs must reveal their sources??? n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevenleser

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. Have other news orgs made it their mission to force full transparency on everyone else?

The answer is "No"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fascisthunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #2

6. um, at some point one must come to a comclusion that some are just opposed to certain things

and will find any way possible to criticize it, such as Wikileaks. Boring...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mmonk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-13-11 10:05 AM
Response to Original message

8. Yep. In fact it is transparency in a sense.

Edited on Fri May-13-11 10:06 AM by mmonk

One can argue the merits. But transparency of government is what whistleblowers usually are presenting. Wikileaks isn't the leak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 11th 2024, 11:36 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.