Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris
Quote:
|
Despite the characterization, I'm occasionally sympathetic to WikiLeaks' stated goals of exposing corruption (though not necessarily their methods).
|
The problem is that they define corruption as "Dur...will it get us headlines? It will?! Den dey is korrupt!!!  "
For example, releasing a metric fuckton of diplomatic e-mails which didn't prove corruption or hypocrisy...just that diplomats, like everyone else, sometimes talk about people behind their back (gasp!!!) did nothing to advance their mission, only their publicity.
This is neither journalism or...really anything other than the mentality of ten-year olds pissing on a wall. |
The job of diplomats may be fairly defined as talking about people behind their back. I mean I talk to diplomats quite a lot and I even saw myself cited (thank god indirectly) as well as people I know cited in such things. This was not a surprise.
Their actions there were... perverse. In many ways they confirmed that US diplomatic positions in private... pretty much look like those in public. A massive data dump was not journalism, and the subsequent unscreened release fuck-up (which showed in my mind sheer incompetence and lack of real ethics) have without doubt put into danger some persons who were of the sort Wikileaks supposedly supports.
I don't know that relative to their supposed mission the leak really served any particular purpose as such.