well not that.. nexxo always has some of the best points on here always has.. one of the reasons the serious forum is so fun to post your opinions in but the thing with julian.. and I do get nexxos point- he did change things this last batch of leaks but let's look at it from a professional point of view.. you know that if someone gives you a batch of classified papers, your first reaction is not to put it out to public without even thinking of the consequences.. that's not what happened he knew what would happen.. with the rape case and his own peeps bailing on him- you can see why it's easy to say these things.. cause it's true
Perhaps he dud consider it. He just did not come to the same conclusion that some others would. With projects like this, where idealistic, bright and intense people have to work together there is always going to be a clash of egos. You should witness a multidisciplinary meeting in the NHS some time: twenty or so highly trained, highly motivated professionals working out the best course of treatment for a patient with often complex health problems requiring complex treatment. Sparks do fly. Because, basically, people care and have very good reasons for their divergent professional opinions. So the staff of Wikileaks falling out with each other is almost inevitable, and no surprise to me. Assange behaving as he does is no surprise either. He is a bit of a narcissist, but then again people who do big things often are. Keep in mind that most people we now regard as "great leaders", Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, Florence Nightingale, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, the list goes on, all have their somewhat dubious, misguided or even darker side. Nobody is perfect. Some other people were stupid or even outright evil and they too are known to history: George Bush Jr., Tony Blair; Joseph Stalin (who fell out with his mates Lenin and Trotsky), Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler. All narcissists with a dream. It ishis moral fibre and wisdom that will determine whether what Assange is doing is going to be a great thing. We'll see how much he has his heart in the right place and if he is a fast learner.
Anyone saw what Michael Moore had released the last few days in regards to WikiLeaks? ¡Viva WikiLeaks! SiCKO Was Not Banned in Cuba Dear Government of Sweden ... --- You don't have to like WikiLeals for what material they're releasing, but I'm not the one to judge about that. I find it just interesting what happens all around WikiLeaks currently and how everyone involved (mainly the US-government and their allies) are trying to blackmail and discredit WikiLeaks. Let's hope that people wake up finally with all this drama going on currently and start to question anything and everything they get told in the furutre instead of following the governments of the world like blindfolded sheeps.
Gutted! Like a lot of people I read that Cuban-Sicko cable on the Guardian website and read it as gospel. I'm really glad you posted those links up so it's now clear in my mind, I hate being misled with mis-information ... kind of like what the Cuban-Sicko cable was aiming to do within the US government itself ... absolutely crazy. plus rep sir.
That's the point of Wikileaks: to make the unknown unknowns known. Interesting also how it highlights today's sloppy journalism. See a government cable, read it as gospel truth. Perhaps one good thing that will come out of Wikileaks is that people learn not to take the news at face value. A more critically evaluative public makes for better journalism.
Exactly what I hope aswell... People should think and crosscheck any topic that's being reported by the media and form their own oppinion based on all the facts, instead of just repeating the oppinion of their favourite media. I'm reading/watching a minimum of 10 different newspapers every day for example from different countries to get as many different POVs as possible (finnish, german, UK, US and russian) before I start to think about a topic myself and form an oppinion. Sounds more then it is actually, as I'm only interested in the daily topics here, so it's maybe two hours a day alltogether. One hour in the morning and one in the evening while having breakfast/dinner. I'm doing the same with every other thing I'm interested in, like reading multiple tech-sites for example etc... Most people I know tho don't want to form their own oppinion based on multiple sources however and have a rather narrowminded and heavily biased oppinion spoonfed to them by their favourite media.
Funny thing happened today. If you try to access the original Guardian article that was linked in Michael Moore's blog, you get a 404 error. Elsewhere on the Guardian's web page is this article, which paints a very different picture. It even quotes from Moore's blog entry that called out the Guardian's mistake in the first place, with no mention at all of their erroneous first article. In my opinion, it would have been much better - dare I say, more open - for The Guardian to admit its mistake and publish a correction in the original article, rather than sending it down the memory hole.
Of course he has the right to express his opinion, as I have the right to call him out on it. I did use the wrong term and tone in my post though. That was a dick move and I apologize. I don't even remember posting that, it was a long night at uni Looking at it now, his post seems to be fairly unfounded while trying to bash Assange. Something about him saying 'any sap could do what he does ... just have to be an expert and (I assume this meant 'on' in context) raping' hits me as a bit slanderous to be honest. I'll just find a better, more efficient way to post my disagreement next time. His later posts do explain his opinion further, which I'm thankful for. When did I ever say he didn't have the right to express his thoughts? I appreciate the unnecessary link to the freedom of speech
I'd never expect a newspaper to admit to mistakes to be honest chap. I've seen the BBC change their story three times during a day. It's why I rarely stick to just one source of infomation (So long as it isn't the Daily Mail[Fail])
For future reference: The Guardian is a croque of **** as a news paper/news website. They're as unapologetic as it gets, and nearly always wrong about just about everything. IMO, they're one step above the Daily Mail, which itself is one step above super market tabloid.
it is a little disturbing that people treat the contents of wikileaks us data as true... are people honestly that dumb! what is being released are diplomatic documents that show the views and ideas being moved within us diplomatic circles.... that these are often incorrect and over-personalised is to be expected - the sheer extent of the 'odd' views expressed is the cause for genuine concern. personally I find the whole process facinating.
Apple pulls Wikileaks' app from the AppStore. [source] Every so often something like this happens and it reminds me why I refuse to give apple my money.
I have to wonder if it's related as I have had trouble purchasing apps from iTunes over the past couple of days (Recieving an Unknown Error 2037) and there is little to no information available on this particular error. Could be my imagination. Was listening to BBC Radio a few minutes ago while heading back from the store and they played a snippet of their 25 minute long interview with Julian. He said he Googled his name and found nearly 40 million hits, and nearly 30 million hits when googling his name a long with the word rape. I have to agree with him when he says that so far, it has been quite a smear campaign against him in the media.
On the contrary, I've seen a number of examples of online newspapers post corrections and amendments at the top or bottom of an article. Though, based on liratheal's comment, I get the impression that The Guardian is a bit like Fox News, only for the liberal audience.
Yeah I haven't heard many good things about The Guardian, although they have really extensive coverage on the Wikileaks stuff from what I could see. Just curious as to what online news sources you find fairly reliable? I usually end up visiting the BBC, NYTimes, but not much else. Sites like Huffington Post are a no no in my book. Boston.com's photo segments are always superb.
'Tis a **** app anyway. On the other hand, my iPhone recognises the word Wikileaks and corrects it (capital and all) if I mistype it. Seems Assange has some supporters on the Apple team.
Personally, I tend to read The Telegraph and The Times/The Sunday Times (Although, only the actual paper Sunday Times), and the BBC for the UK news. I can't get along with any of the other papers or their online presences. Personal preference, though.
I bet Assange has friends in very high places if I'm honest, normally people will have allies and enemies very high-up depending on view. but you need your tin foil hate back Nexxi
Murdoch or not, they tend to at least research their stories to a vaguely better degree than most, which given my opinion of how investigative journalism has degraded over the last few years, is quite important to me.
