Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: TalkLeftThe Media's Continuing War On Wikileaks
By Big Tent Democrat
Glenn Greenwald documents the latest in the Media's continuing war on Wikileaks:
Last week, on January 3, The Guardian published a scathing Op-Ed by James Richardson blaming WikiLeaks for endangering the life of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe. Richardson [. . .] pointed to a cable published by WikiLeaks in which American diplomats revealed that Tsvangirai, while publicly opposing American sanctions on his country, had privately urged their continuation as a means of weakening the Mugabe regime[. . . .] This accusation against WikiLeaks was repeated far and wide. In The Wall Street Journal, Jamie Kirchick [. . .] wrote under this headline: "Julian Assange's reckless behavior could cost Zimbabwe's leading democrat his life." [. . .] The Atlantic's Chris Albon [. . echoed the same accusation[.]
There was just one small problem with all of this: it was totally false. It wasn't WikiLeaks which chose that cable to be placed into the public domain, nor was it WikiLeaks which first published it. It was The Guardian that did that.
In an update, Greenwald writes:
About all of this, this person asks the key question: "Would [these media outlets] have written the exact same article, substituting Guardian for WL? I doubt it." I doubt it, too -- highly -- and that's the point: the political and media class is obsessed with demonizing WikiLeaks and painting them as fundamentally different than "respectable" media outlets[.]
"Doubting" is too weak. If the story was worth reporting when they thought it was Wikileaks, even more so should the story be published now that these outlets know it was in fact, The Guardian that chose to publish the cable in question.
The fact that these same media outlets will not report on The Guardian "endangering" the Zimbabwe figure's life evidences the real point of the story - not concern for the Zimbabwe figure, but rather an attempt to demonize Wikileaks.
The ultimate irony is this story:
Zimbabwe is to investigate bringing treason charges against the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, and other individuals over confidential talks with US diplomats revealed by WikiLeaks.
This article was published in the Guardian, the actual media outlet that "revealed" the cables in question.
Speaking for me only
Full post as published by TalkLeft on January 13, 2011 (boomark / email).
Marketing Spam
Member Source Media pays $200,000 civil penalty for deceptive online advertising.
Nielsen Media Challenged
TV ratings company to pay undisclosed settlement in antitrust lawsuit.
Media/Telecom
consumer rights involving print, radio, television, video, DVD, video games, and mobile telephones.
Wireless Entertainment
Kangaroo Media pays Immersion Entertainment $2 million patent infringement settlement.

Geheimdienstbericht über Wikileaks
Wikileaks: radical transparency AND total anonymity
WikiLeaks: From Whistleblowing to Information Vandalism
Wikileaks Good Wikileaks Bad Maybe Not So Clear









