Andrew Sullivan, of all possible sources of information, sends us (in a slightly roundabout way) to a fascinating interview of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, by Stephen Colbert. Colbert seems uncharacteristically serious. He gets Assange to admit that 90% of the viewers of his leaked tape of American pilots shooting Iraqis didn't watch most of the tape; the title (Collateral Murder) was enough for most of them; he himself wrote that title, and if it was a bit high-handed, well, he promises his sources he'll get their leaks wide public attention, so he's got to be creative with the way he present the materials.
He also claims that the story about a fire-fight near the event that was filmed is not true, or mostly not true, but by the time he gets to that part of the story there's not much left of his credibility: the man has admitted he edits sources and sets them up to be inflammatory, then earnestly assures us he's trustworthy. Not in my book.
Assange, by the way, has yet to leak anything about Israel; I expect there's too much competition so he stays away from such a crowded field. I would however deeply appreciate if he'd start leaking documents about the operation and decision-making process in places such as the UN and its subsidiaries, or the IAEA, or those guys. Not that he'd gain trustworthiness thereby, but at least for the propaganda value.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I watched the edited 7:04 version of the interview - when he explains the law he reminds me of Ibrahim, parrotting without understanding, other than that I find him truly frightening in his irresponsibility it at all only fit for an adolescent - this gloating about showing more real death on the net - one day he complains that he is shadowed by intelligence services the next he goes on Colbert Nation - the nuts are taking over, hopefully I'm through with life before they'll succeed.
here is the unedited 11 something video of it - I'll watch it when I can stand 4 more minutes of Mr. Pompousity himself
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview
Silke
Wikileaks may be propagandists; the short version of the helicopter video was edited and the "full" version was cut. There also might have been fights nearby the shooting, maybe the first group who was shot had been up to no good, and maybe there was background information exposing the bombed building as _the_ center of terrrorism.
But why did the gunners shoot the second group, the people who tried to rescue the man who was struggling to get on his feet?
Judith
I can't answer that. My point isn't that they were blameless, but rather that Wikileaks are not presenting the truth, rather a manipulation.
I do share your point, the videos and the way wikileaks presents them are manipulations. Wikileaks might very well also have cut out information which would explain the shooting of the second group, so my question is basically a stupid one. Though such a manipulation should not be very difficult to rectify for the US forces. They could just publish the missing information. If only they did.
Judith
"They could just publish the missing information. If only they did."
and what if the missing information showed a minor mistake of a soldier, the kind of mistake even the most ethical combat experienced soldier would categorize as unavoidable? - what do you think the shriekers would come up with?
Did you notice the smirking grinning confirmation by that - insert expletive - Wikileak-guy that he would show more actual real life death? He obviously can hardly wait to show a real life mass shooting preferably with close-up of faces or wounds - he isn't about ethics or morality he is about maximum gore AND foremost disrespect to the dead, the dying, the wounded - that's what he is after and that's what we will get
I well remember the time when TV news wouldn't show dead bodies and it was a good rule - the world has gained nothing from our being able to see victims in technicolor - I would like to see the question answered if this showing everything, leaving nothing to the imagination, isn't going to damage our ability to feel genuine horror - the pictures are so terrible that at least my mind tends to shut off out of a need of self-protection
Silke
Silke, whatever they would shriek, could it be worse than the current situation? If the shooting of the second group has haunted me ever since I saw the scenes, what did it trigger in the heads of people who have always been eager to bash the US for invading Irak?
But I must admit "shriekers" or image questions are not what preoccupies me. Neither am I interested in bashing soldiers. What bothers me is rather a "black flag" thing – only that the soldiers did not simply follow an order but asked for permission to fire. According to the video, the reasons they gave may have been valid in two cases. The shooting of the second group however rises questions, at least without other information than that given in the video. Probably I lack in imagination, but I could not come up with any "minor mistake" scenario answering them. If there should be additional information about the incident and how it was handled afterwards, its release could hardly aggravate the situation.
Did you notice the smirking grinning confirmation by that - insert expletive - Wikileak-guy that he would show more actual real life death?
I perceived it as sarcasm. As I do not know Mr. Assange, I could not say anything about his motivations.
Concerning the horrors of war: would the world gain anything from our not being able to learn about them?
Judith
Judith
there is ample material out there for those willing to get a feel for the horrors of war and if it has to be videos here is one and no bodies in it just ample food for imagination and compassion - admittedly old stuff but I bet that the emotional strain for those in the midst of it has not changed http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/education/pathways/path/jqrjbx/12
on the same site you find also the War Poets which tell you how soldiers feel while they have to be in it a lot better than any journalists can not least because they were in it themselves. and never mind the men in the video sounding callous they have ample time to learn to live with it afterwards. I guess that the US has problems how to word its info on the video, how do you inform a public which is eager to condemn?
I may be old-fashioned but actual killings should not be shown to us who have no way of getting into the boots of those who have to do it. I remember having seen it first in a video of a prison killing and I never will look at such stuff again - independent from which side it comes. Death is too serious a matter to be published in this way.
and if that Wikileak-guy was sarcastic then he is even more devoid of tact and compassion than I assumed him to be.
Silke
Silke, I am afraid I do not need journalists to tell me how soldiers feel. Concerning the "wording problems": The video is made of onboard camera footage and radio communication. Such recordings could protect soldiers against allegations. The published version is not exactly helpful in this regard. It has been edited (cut, subtitled, the short version has also tendentious commentaries and labels, etc). If the manipulations should be deceptive, the original videos would expose it. I cannot see how wording problems could impede that.
Judith
I just don't trust our ability to read a video like that as little as I trust Ibrahim's ability to read international law - as a laywoman I for one almost irresistibly tend to forget that what I am seeing is only a narrowly focused two-dimensional part of reality.
BTW I just remembered that it was a long series of Orson Welles musings on fakes that educated me to that "humility" - let that Wikileak guy blend back into obscurity might not be the worst of strategies - fortunately his swoon inducing factor doesn't seem to be high.
that is the problem with slandering once it is out there it is out there and no amount of fisking it will convince the out to condemn crowd
Silke
Post a Comment