WIKILEAKS publisher Julian Assange has confirmed his intention to run as a Senate candidate in the 2013 federal election and will announce the formation of a WikiLeaks political party early next year.
He wouldn't get my vote. He's kind of a dick and there are actually some things that I think the government does need to keep secret from it's people. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
his agenda is so blindingly obvious and irrelevant to the people he would be 'representing' that he would make a shit candidate, could someone with his background really take a step back and worry about the little things? doubt it, he'd spend all his time show ponying around trying to make a name for himself or 'fighting for freedoms' rather than get shit done.
Yeah I don't think Assanges career would go much like Garrett's. He would be a major liability for any of the major parties, and they have all called him a dick and turn coat at some point.
He would be an annoying grandstanding independent link Barnaby Joyce sort of used to be. Would the member for Nimbin please shut his fucking trap, you don't like America... we get it.
Who Assange or Joyce?I'll believe that Joyce has his constituents best interests at heart.Assange has Assange's public image at heart and nothing else as far as I can see.
Assange
I've heard several people say he's about "public image"; I don't really get that when I see the stuff he says/does. I think he uses his public image as a tool to deliver his message but it's not like he's a Kardashian
To each their own I guess. But his speeches tend to be dripping in hyperbole and short on facts. I also think that his continued insistence that Sweden is only after him to deport him to the US, is him trying to get out of shit that he is probably guilty of.
Sweden has absolutely no track record of unjust deportation, and has a very high judicial standard.
His cult of personality is what is keeping out of reach of the Swedish Justice system so he isn't a Kardashian per se, but I don't think much more highly of him. If he was just a guy, Ecuador would have told him to fuck off by now and left him to face the music.
I also think the fact that he as decided to side with Ecuador of all places is fucking hysterical. Here is a country with a long, well documented history of abusing press freedoms. Seems to me like his principles are fairly liquid.
He stinks of an anti american moron, who has made powerful enemies. Who would have thought that publishing US State secrets as fast as you can would have consequences?
Watergate was a clear and systematic attempt undermine the US's democracy.
It was also reported in a professional manner.
There is a huge difference between that and what Assange has done. He can't possibly vetted the 400k or so wires he and his group leaked.
He is totally unaccountable as the truth of what he was publishing. By any measure it is terrible Journalism if that's the road you want to take with him.
Publishing intelligence data en masse is not the same thing as holding a government to account.
If he had focused on clear evidence of false information regarding WMD or a clear chain of policy at abu ghraib then he would have a leg to stand on. But they didn't, they just blanketly published everything, with seemingly no regard for the consequences.
How is publishing a diplomats impressions of a foreign leader holding obama to account exactly? Meanwhile it unquestionably does damage to any negotiations with that country, if they were negative.
*edit* It also isn't his country. The US has no mandate to be accountable to him or wikileaks.
There is a huge difference between that and what Assange has done. He can't possibly vetted the 400k or so wires he and his group leaked.
He is totally unaccountable as the truth of what he was publishing. By any measure it is terrible Journalism if that's the road you want to take with him.
Publishing intelligence data en masse is not the same thing as holding a government to account.
If he had focused on clear evidence of false information regarding WMD or a clear chain of policy at abu ghraib then he would have a leg to stand on. But they didn't, they just blanketly published everything, with seemingly no regard for the consequences.
How is publishing a diplomats impressions of a foreign leader holding obama to account exactly? Meanwhile it unquestionably does damage to any negotiations with that country, if they were negative.
What wikileaks did was good. They came out with a source of raw data which could be used as part of journalism, but was not strictly journalism itself. You have been raised by evil governments with little transparency and accountability. You have been made to believe that secrecy is a necessary thing and that freedom of press is a dangerous thing. Your point of view is very similar to a military point of view, and that should be a worry for you.
What wikileaks did was good. They came out with a source of raw data which could be used as part of journalism, but was not strictly journalism itself. You have been raised by evil governments with little transparency and accountability. You have been made to believe that secrecy is a necessary thing and that freedom of press is a dangerous thing. Your point of view is very similar to a military point of view, and that should be a worry for you.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Wikileaks did was reckless and irresponsible. They simply didn't have the means to check if what they were publishing was accurate and true. It could have been the ramblings of some pissed off nutbag working at Langley. Now it is being hailed as the future of journalism. Well if that's the case I am afraid for any accountability moving forward.
You can only hold someone to account for doing something wrong.
There is little evidence to suggest otherwise, historically I can't think of any government out there that hasn't relied on secrecy. There's really no proof that a government can operate without it. I'm not saying that it wouldnt work, but it's an untested model as far as I know.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Wikileaks did was reckless and irresponsible. They simply didn't have the means to check if what they were publishing was accurate and true.
if you got a hold of a bunch of confidential documents from china, are you saying releasing them would be reckless? even if they show clear disregard for international law and indifference to human suffering?
What Manning did was arguably irresponsible. What Assange did was just release the original documentation instead of just a journalistic overview / opinion.
How is publishing a diplomats impressions of a foreign leader holding Obama to account exactly?
its not so much the diplomats impressions, it was the spying that they were conducting (that broke international law) while under the guise of being diplomats.
if you got a hold of a bunch of confidential documents from china, are you saying releasing them would be reckless? even if they show clear disregard for international law and indifference to human suffering?
If you have the means to check their accuracy and truth then no. But if you just get some dude go here is a bunch of confidential shit and then immediately publish it then yes.
What Manning did was arguably irresponsible. What Assange did was just release the original documentation instead of just a journalistic overview / opinion.
What Manning did was clear cut illegal. He will have signed an agreement to uphold the the state secrets act or whatever the US version is called.
But what your saying is that the drug dealer has done something wrong but the smuggler is somehow absolved of all guilt. If it was irresponsible to leak it, it is just as irresponsible to uncritically publish it.
its not so much the diplomats impressions, it was the spying that they were conducting (that broke international law) while under the guise of being diplomats.
The vast majority of the diplomatic cables were simply reporting back to base.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Wikileaks did was reckless and irresponsible. They simply didn't have the means to check if what they were publishing was accurate and true.
This does not matter. No where did Wikileaks claim that the content of the documents was factual. It may even be the case that they weren't. What matters is that the documents existed.
If people read something that supports their world view they don't bother fact checking.
yes, people are idiots. are you questioning the validity of the releases though? do you think they're made up? How would one fact check otherwise confidential information?
I dont know, you would have to ask the collection of journalists who tried.
information can be fact-checked from a 3rd party, exposing(swidt) the information is required first though.
How would one fact check otherwise confidential information
No I dont question their validity, but just now you said that a 3rd party could fact check them, and then in your next post you said that they cant be fact checked.
But Fact checking is beside the point.
I DO question the unchecked release of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents though. It seems incredibly irresponsible and can potentially threaten lives.
And I don't think that governments are about to do away with secrecy, they will just find new places to hide stuff.
Finally, Assange started out as a computer hacker. I think he likes to try and find out peoples secrets for his own personal pleasure, and invented all these moral reasons for doing so after the fact. He's a loose cannon and cannot be trusted.
As a result of "holding the US government to account" over this stuff, people in China started lynch mobs to find people who had talked to US officials. Spreading false or un-contextualized information can be and is very dangerous. It is a journalists job to ensure the information is accurate and presented in the proper context. Its a very important part of holding a government to account.
"Raw data" is how 911 truthers still have any sway what so ever.
Spreading massive amounts of unchecked, unverified data is enormously irresponsible.
and as far as the exposure without fact checking goes my logic is simple.
If they had have done their homework and verified the information in regards to a clear cut case of wrong doing, then I would credit them with exposing a secret.
If they just publish hundreds of thousands of documents and some of it happens to be legit, then the person who did the fact checking did the exposing.
PM
WWW