Wikileaks are now Wikidrips?
Chris | 06.01.2011 11:09 | Analysis | Repression | Sheffield
So far this year there have been 12 Cablegate cables released in six days (based on the deoxy rss feed, 8 cables released on 2nd January and 4 on the 4th January 2011) at this rate it won't take 35 years to leak them all it will take 350 years...
The three corporate media partners of Wikileaks, The Guardian, De Spiegel and the New York Times appear to have more-or-less dropped the story since just before Christmas, have they got bored with the story or have they been leaned on?
So far this year the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has taken a leading role in releasing information from the cables, see Israel Plans Total War on Lebanon, Gaza and Israel said it would keep Gaza near collapse. However it don't appear that Aftenposten has done a deal with Wikileaks since they are not releasing the actual cables:
"Aftenposten, Norway’s largest newspaper, reported last month that it has all 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables that were obtained by WikiLeaks and has begun publishing articles based on these documents, while not reproducing the cables themselves."
In November I commented that:
"Rather than dumping all the material in the public domain and letting anyone sift through and blog / tweet / whatever the results of what can be found, Wikileaks has allowed a select number of corporate media outlets filter and "redact" and totally manage the release the material"
For how long are the leaks going to only drip out?
When will the Wikileaks deal with select mainstream corporate media outlets end and when will the flood gates to be opened and all the material being placed into the public domain?
Chris
Additions
Julian Assange's relationship with the corporate media
07.01.2011 09:56
Assange threatened to sue the The Guardian over leak of cablegate docs
![](/img/extlink.gif)
The above is based on:
The Man Who Spilled the Secrets
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Which contains:
"Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience"
"The Guardian was the lead organization from the outset: it came up with the idea of a collaboration with WikiLeaks, and it made the arrangement work."
Of course describing the pro-establishment Guardian as "One of the oldest newspapers in the world, with strict and established journalistic standards", is a joke...
"The origins of the collaboration between WikiLeaks and its “media partners” date back to June 2010, when Nick Davies read a four-paragraph story in his own paper about the arrest of Private First Class Bradley Manning, an American soldier who had allegedly passed along hundreds of thousands of classified military and State Department documents to WikiLeaks. Davies resolved to find Assange."
"In October, while The Guardian was preparing to publish the Iraq War Logs and working on package three, Heather Brooke, a British freelance journalist who had written a book on freedom of information, had a copy of the package-three database leaked to her by a former WikiLeaks volunteer. Leigh shrewdly invited Brooke to join the Guardian team. He did not want her taking the story to another paper. Furthermore, by securing the same database from a source other than Assange, The Guardian might then be free of its promise to wait for Assange’s green light to publish. Leigh got the documents from Brooke, and the paper distributed them to Der Spiegel and The New York Times. The three news organizations were poised to publish the material on November 8."
"That was when Assange stormed into Rusbridger’s office, threatening to sue. Rusbridger, Leigh, and the editors from Der Spiegel spent a marathon session with Assange, his lawyer, and Hrafnsson, eventually restoring an uneasy calm. Some in the Guardian camp had wanted to break off relations with Assange entirely. Rusbridger somehow kept all parties at the table—a process involving a great deal of coffee followed by a great deal of wine. Ultimately he agreed to a further delay, allowing Assange time to bring in other media partners, this time France’s Le Monde and Spain’s El País."
More interesting is the bigger picture -- see this great article on wikileaks and the nature of the free software mode of production:
Wikileaks: a Political-Economic History By Alistair Davidson
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Chris
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
TACE
06.01.2011 13:28
Just as in the Freemasons motto, AVDI VEDE TACE, Hear, See and keep Quiet.
Just talking about it will break the Omertà (code(s) of silence,
Eyes Open
plagiarism
06.01.2011 17:43
Conor
Conor: Eh?
06.01.2011 18:52
The repost from Cryptome here that is nothing to do with me?
And what "guideline" are you talking about?
Chris
wikileaks material EXPLOITED to SPLIT German LEFT PARTY
07.01.2011 14:34
As the magazine is always eager to weaken the LEFT PARTY by smear campaigns, and in particular by sowing dissent and promoting rifts among it´s ranks DER SPIEGEL published a story about one leak, which the magazine claims is about a meeting of the LEFT party´s deputy Gregor Gysi with the US ambassador.
Gysi was made to look by DER SPIEGEL like an unprincipled opportunist and vainglorious chatterer who was fishing for the ambassadors compliments, and who tried to placate the US authorities on the party´s opposition towards NATO.
Press and tv news channels eagerly took up the SPIEGELS story and ran a media campaign.
Subsequently substantial stirrs were created within the LEFT PARTY.
The crucial thing is, DER SPIEGEL never published the original leak.
Let us assume the magazine made SELECTIVE use of ASSANGE S MATERIAL to EXPLOIT the leaks.
This week the German government parties started a campaign arguing for a BAN on the LEFT PARTY. The party has seats in eleven regional parliament and in the German national parliament.
RG
Makes sense to me
07.01.2011 19:32
Aren't there hundreds of thousands of cables?
imagine, say, 10,000 people all trying to highlight the 10,000 juiciest of those all at the same time.
pretty much all of them would get buried beneath one another. it would be hard to give any story at all any amount of attention, and the whole exercise would have been completely pointless. Burying bad news is one thing, burying it within a landslide is something else.
bystander
Bystander - have you read the mission statement of Indymedia?
09.01.2011 18:36
How is that less preferable than having corporate journos handpick what they want us to read?
"Burying bad news is one thing, burying it within a landslide is something else."
Hows about burying it under blizzard of allegations about Assange?
The corporate media are clearly turning to other things (as they did it with Gaza - leaving the blockade in place). I think putting the raw data out there now is the most reasonable thing to do. Then people who are interested in particular issues can do their research and use their own information networks to get the stuff out.
rednatsyB