In recent days secret government/military documents have been leaked and released by the website Wikileaks. This release of documents concerning the War in Afghanistan has created a controversy and debate. This debate is centered on the proper role of the media and its relationship with the government. In this debate are some critical questions: When should the media report stories? What information is off limits? What does the public have a right to know about war? Can a democracy exist when its government keeps secrets?You are to consider these questions as you read the attached articles below. After reading the three articles you are summarize the articles' points in a comment to this post in the following fashion.
What support for Wikileaks' actions is offered? What opposition to their actions is given? Finally, what does this current issue say about the need for the mainstream media? Please note, I am not looking for your opinion. Your answers should be based totally on the articles found below.
The acticles can be accessed below by simply clicking on the active links.
Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers
Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud
WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media
All the support for the Wikileaks' if offered in the first article. In the first article Robert Scheer states that the Wikileaks' are not the thing that is harming the soldiers but the president that is willingly sacrificing the troops. The Wikileaks’ are showing that we are in this war for the wrong reason. According to the documents this war has nothing to do with national security, it only has to do with regional issues and trying to win their own prizes and passions. The report says that while the government has us tricked into thinking that we are chasing Al Qaeda, there is really only very few members left. Pakistan is supposedly cooperating with while they are really supporting our enemies. The problems are really against their own people and the threat to the U.S. is only there because we are getting involved. Tracing back to Jimmy Carter the U.S. got involved in Afghanistan trying to prove the Soviets wrong. Because of the involvement in Afghanistan 9/11 happened. Regan recruited terrorist to help fight communism, but now some of those same people such as Bin Laden caused the 9/11 attacks. Before 9/11 happened they were not worried about the threat that the terrorist posed, only defeating communism. The report states that one of Obama’s advisers has past experience with giving terrorist missiles and also played a role in the assassination programs during the Vietnam Era.
ReplyDeleteAll the opposition for the Wikileak’s came from the second article. The article states that the Assange is anti-war but never really gives a reason for releasing the reports. He is yet to explain how he got the reports. Yet, he is enjoying the attention he is receiving. He claims to have edited the repots so not hurt people personally, but there is enough personal information about people that could put many lives at risk. Assange does not seem to care about putting lives at risk. His plan for releasing the report may include helping only himself out.
The need for mainstream media is displayed in the third article. Assange releasing the Wikileaks’ documents shows the need for mainstream media because it shows that anyone can say anything that they want over the internet regardless of their experience. The reports that were released would have been foreign to the public. Assange realized this and sent the report to the Mainstream Media in advance to try and make sense out of it, to make it a bigger deal for the public. The report itself only revealed parts of info that the Mainstream Media could have sorted out if they had the adequate time, but Assange did not give them the needed time. Mostly, only the bad things are being released that have happened in Afghanistan. Without more investigation on the report, they should not matter much to the public. The Mainstream Media can make sense of this, over time.
In the article, “Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers”, utmost support is shown for the website, WikiLeaks. The author is trying to make a point that the president and other government official are concerned about WikiLeaks, not for the safety of their troops but for the concern of their own wellbeing and amount of power. The article is also making the point that the president is the one who is hiding important information from the media. It states that we are not in the war to promote national security and fulfill what the president wants us to do but rather the interest of the war is just to benefit from it. It reveals that the reason that Afghans launched the September 11th attacks of 2001 was because we had occupied the area previously towards to end of the Cold War to help fight the communist Soviet Union. Our government supported terrorists to fight the Soviet Union, including some of those who turned around and launched a terrorist attack on us. It makes the point that the government was supporting our enemies. The author supports WikiLeaks entirely in everything they have done in his article.
ReplyDeleteIn “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud”, no support is given to WikiLeaks or Julian Assange whatsoever. The main point being made by the article is that he is a person who has no respect for the government and does not care for national security. It points out that Assange’s goal is not to help, but to make those who are protected by the secrets suffer. The article discusses that it’s not sure what Julian Assange’s reason for releasing such government secrets. Even though in the video, it is claimed that people have been murdered since the release of this information, he suggests that he has protected those who have vulnerability. It shows that Assange denies any of this information being a threat to the national security of the United States. Because of this released information, many who helped the United States’ war effort are put at risk because details to their whereabouts are given. By trying to expose the war, he is also causing harm and needs to be exposed as the true person that he is. This article expresses the most hate towards him and his website.
The article, “WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media” shows that even though there is Internet to report news and information, we will always be in need of mainstream media so that the public can properly interpret this knowledge. The reason that Julian Assange made this information available to the public via the Internet was because it was useless in it’s current state. With the help of the mainstream media and various other resources that are time consuming, it is possibly for the data to be interpreted. The documents, unless thoroughly investigated, shall regard information of not much importance which shows that the mainstream media is needed to shed light on matters like such. This article neither supports nor goes against WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange but rather remains neutral.
All support for WIkiLeaks is shown in the article "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers." The article describes what WikiLeaks did as "brilliant journalism," revealing to the public just how little our government values the truth, and how willingly they sacrifice our troops for missions that are quite unnecessary. The document proves that many missions are by far unrelated to the president’s agenda, and more focused on “prizes, passions and causes that are obsessively homegrown.” The article goes on to explain that, while the public eye is fixated on the hunt for Al Qaeda, this organization’s numbers are below 100 and many are hiding in Pakistan. All the while, Pakistan has fooled us into thinking they’re cooperating with the U.S., when they’re really continuing to support their supposed “enemies.” Also, 9/11 is not the reason we are occupying Afghanistan, according to the article. The reason 9/11 happened was because we were in Afghanistan during the cold war, trying to humble the Soviets. Carter’s national security adviser was asked if he regretted giving weapons to future terrorists and he replied by saying that the liberation of Central Europe at the end of the cold war was much more important than some “stirred up Muslims.” One of President Obama’s advisers today was previously an adviser for Carter as well and had given future terrorists highly dangerous heat seeking rockets and helped in the Vietnam-era assassination programs. The article claims that we should thank WikiLeaks for letting the public in on the “sick joke” which is our nation’s foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteAll opposition for WikiLeaks comes from the article “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange is a Fraud.” The article strongly suggests that Assange is a bad person, portraying him as a villain, complete with giving him the name “Unaleaker.” The article also portrays WikiLeaks as “a brothel of self-promotion, Assange its puffed-up pimp.” The article also points out that Assange has still not revealed how he obtained the document. Also, that enough personal information is given about the people in the report that their lives could be in great danger, but Assange does not seem to care. It is also unclear of what Assange wants, other than for war to be stopped, and the article present the idea that Assange may not “want” anything, and that this act may just be something Assange did to make himself feel good, in a sense.
The third article, “WikiLeaks’ data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of mainstream media” shows the need for mainstream media. The article states that the data-dump from WikiLeaks is proof that mainstream media and old fashioned news gathering is a necessity, and cannot be replaced simply with Internet. The report that Assange released would have been virtually impossible for the pubic to read and understand. Knowing this, Assange gave the report to the mainstream media first, but did not give them adequate time to fully decipher the report so that the average person could easily understand and interpret what the full report meant. Until real journalism can be done, through interviews, memoirs, and other sources, the raw data will just serve the purpose of giving the situation “color,” and providing details. Without more journalism, these articles don’t truly matter, because they only give information that is already known to those who actually somewhat follow the situation through the mainstream media.
In “Thank God for the Whistle Blowers” the author’s main point is that what Wikileaks was brilliant journalism. Robert Scheer supports Wikileaks. We didn't go to war with Afghanistan because of their sudden love for terrorism they did it because we invaded their land. Robert Scheer said "It has ever been so with the Afghans, and our continued attempt to bend their passions to our purposes will always lead to horrid results. That is, in fact, just how their nation came to be the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks, which is the ostensible purpose of our occupation. We meddled in their history in a grand cold war adventure to humble the Soviets by attacking the secular government in Kabul with which Moscow sided." We sent people over to meddle into their "business" which was not needed. And the airing of the armies documents are almost the same when the Pentagon Papers where surfaced. He's making us question in this article who really is at fault for the war them or us and are these articles really harming to us. Is Wikileaks the bad guy in this ordeal or is it our own government?
ReplyDeleteIn “Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange is a Fraud” most of the opposition comes from this article. The author Tunku Varadarajan tells how Assange doesn't really care about the documents getting out he clearly doesn't like war but no one knows why he did this; and what he really wants out of it. He comments on how the statement that nationally security could be at risk needs to be shot down. But since there is no proof that Assange conspired with employees of the military to leak these documents there is nothing in the law to take action against him.
In the third article “WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media” it tells us how anyone can do anything over the internet. The internet can replace the traditional news. The article tells about how no real reporting for newspapers could really happen because Wikileaks put a deadline on the documents. Farther along in the article they point out that no real work on investigation happened so these documents don’t really mean anything because no one really knows what they say or what they mean.
Support for the website Wikileaks' is found in the first article, "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers. This article supports Wikileaks' by saying how it uncovers the truth of how U.S. leaders really feel about the release of the papers and of the war. The leaders are not afraid of endangering our troops, but are afraid of how these papers could affect their careers. They are concerned more on their own desires than of the war. Top national security advisors have admitted that there are only a few members of Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. The members that are left even receive help from Pakistan, a so-called ally in the war on terrorism. Many will say that we are in this war because of 9/11 but the article leaks information on how we actually could have been at fault. Before these attacks, America sent terrorists into the Arab nations during the Cold War to help end communism. Some of these terrorists were Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, two architects of the 9/11 attacks. Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor of President Carter when asked if he regretted arming future terrorists said no, that he was not concerned of "some stirred-up Muslims but of ending communism in Europe." Now the top civilian advisor of Obama, Richard Holbrooke, who used to work for President Carter seems as though he hasn't learned his lesson either since he aided terrorists during the Vietnam Era. It seems that he has made the same mistake in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThe second article opposes Wikileaks' by calling Julian Assange a fraud. He says that he leaked this information because he wanted to stop those in charge of war. He believes that they are the most dangerous. But in countless interviews, Assange will not say where this information came from, why he released it, or why he would put so many lives at stake. There is no way to tell if this information is credible and there is no proof to convict Assange with conspiring with military employees about the information. All there is is lots of papers with lots of information about informants that help troops who could be in danger. It seems that he does not care about them, but just likes the attention he receives. maybe this man really is just a pump-up pimp with Wikileaks' being his brothel of self-promotion.
The third article is where the need for mainstream media is found. This article helps show how we need experienced news reporters, editors, and organizations and how the internet is not able to replace them. Assange sent these documents to the papers knowing they would not have enough time to look them over and decipher them before giving it to the public. By doing this, he only provided "color" to the incident and gave the public nothing that they could really understand to help them know more about what is going on. This helped him by blowing the information out of proportion. Since all the information hasn't been edited or even understood by anyone, no one can really tell what the information talks about.
The support for WikiLeaks is given in the article “Thank God for the Whistle Blowers”. Robert Scheer states that WikiLeaks is simply “brilliant journalism”. He supports WikiLeaks. He said that it is our president who is sacrificing the lives of our men, not the work from WikiLeaks. In this article, it says that we went to war with Afghanistan because we invaded their land. It was not for their love of terror and war. It had nothing to do with national security, but for the president’s own prizes and passions. The article says that we are focused on Al Qaeda, but in reality there are very few left and they are hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan is also pretending to cooperate with us while they continue to cooperate with our enemies. We have continued to put our purposes in the way of the Afghans passions. This lead to their country being the people behind the 9/11 attacks. In this article, it says that “9/11 happened because the United States was in the region, and not the other way around.” It started when the United States got involved with the Cold War by trying to humble the Soviets.
ReplyDeleteThe opposition for WikiLeaks is given in the article “WikiLeaks Founder, Julian Assange, is a fraud.” In this article, Julian Assange comes out to be the “bad guy”. It is unclear to what Assange wants, except for the war being stopped. He has not yet explained how he got the documents and clearly loves the attention he is receiving from them. The documents give a lot of personal information about people and could possibly put their lives in danger, but he does not seem to care. The article suggests that Assange may not “want” anything other than making himself feel good.
The need for mainstream media comes from the article “WikiLeaks’ data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media.” The releasing of the documents shows that people can put whatever they want on the Internet. It also shows that old fashion journalism is still needed. We need more interviews and other sources so that the whole document situation will be understood by the public. Assange gave the documents to the mainstream media before he released them online. He did this so that they could translate the documents and try to make sense of them for the public. However, he did not give the mainstream media enough time. The information gained from the documents is already known, but does not make much sense to the public. With more time, the mainstream media would have been able to sort out the confusion.
In the article, "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers" there is support shown for WikiLeaks. The article is pretty much saying it is just good journalism is what wikileaks is. Robert Scheer says that it is the president that is harming the troops, not wikileaks. The leaks are giving us information about the war that Obama is trying to keep secret to protect himself. We are in this war because of 9-11 and 9-11 happened because of two people who the U.S. was involved in.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, "Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange is a Fraud" there is a lot of opposition about wikileaks. The author is pretty much bashing on Assange the whole article and saying he does not even care about the war. Varadarajan bluntly comes out and says Assange is a villain and doesn't even have a reason for wikileaks. He also says that if there was proof about what Assange was doing he would be in a lot of trouble, but there is no proof so no one can do anything about it. But Assange doesn't reveal how he got the document about the war so the author is basically saying he's a fraud.
In the article, "Wikileaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media" it basically says there is a need for mainstream media. Without it, the documents from Assange would be impossible to comprehend. The are in like a code sort of and need to be further explained in detail to be understood. Anyone can do anything they want on the Internet and Assange knew this. So he sent his documents to the mainstream media so they could explain them better for the public. But there wasn't enough time for them to do this and they only released the "bad" stuff about the war. Over time they will be able to also release the "good" stuff.
All the support for WikiLeaks was in the first article, “Thank God for the Whistle Blowers.” WikiLeaks was noted as “brilliant journalism.” Richard Nixon stated that it is our president that is sacrificing the lives of our soldiers not those in the press letting the public know about the missions themselves. Obama’s national security adviser admitted that fewer than 100 foreign fighters were in Afghanistan. Leaked documents reveal that the government is just toying with us pretending to cooperate when they really support our enemies. Documents contain local hustles that our dead but rise to a national security threat against the U.S. Robert Gibbs said that we are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11. The article states that our government recruited terrorist from Arab to go to Afghanistan in a holy war against godless communism. Freedom Fighters included Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
ReplyDeleteThe opposition for WikiLeaks comes from the second article “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a fraud.” He is described as a villain and got the name unaleaker. The second article states that Julian Assange hates war and wants it to end, but he never tells why he releases reports, only saying he isn’t going to put enough personal information to hurt someone. Assange likes the attention he is getting from all of this and has yet to say how he got the reports.
The need for mainstream media is listed in the third article “WikiLeaks data-dump.” Assange released 92,000 documents full of Afghanistan intelligence into the public. Julian uses codes to say what is going on but The Guardian and New York Times tells us what it is. There are no real reporters or real newspaper reporting’s. The leaks provide details and reinforce existing biases.
Total and complete support is stated in the article “Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers.” What WikiLeaks did was separated the “truth” from the reality. It is understood that political figures cares more about their position than the safety of the public. The president sends our troops out for little, pointless reasons and risks their lives in hope that the truth would not be released. Our soldiers did not go into the war to support national security but to claim the rewards and passions of doing the president’s orders. It continues to say that despite the fact that the people thinks that the government are chasing Al Qaeda, there is only less than one hundred left and is said to be “hunkered down.” Pakistan is evidently working with us when they are really helping our enemies. Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs gives out false information by saying that the U.S. got involved with Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks. Because we were in Afghanistan, the “freedom fighters” were the ones who were behind 9/11. Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser was asked if he would take back giving weapons to future terrorists and they said that the freedom of Central Europe at the end of the war was more important to the history of the world than some “stirred up Muslims.” Again, one of the president’s workers gave away dangerous and harmful weaponry (heat-seeking Stinger rockets) that was helped designed in the assignation programs. Robert Scheer concluded that we are now in on this joke that exceeded on the foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThe disagreement and conflict came within the “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud.” The article is comparing Assange to a “nihilistic leaker-hacker dude, a rootless subverter of international public order.” He does not care about anyone but himself and still he loves the attention. With him strongly claiming that he does not want war to occur, he yet does not give up the information in how he found the documents and claims that he is still questioning if the information is credible. Many people wonder why he goes on harming many people and risk losing their lives, but he does not care that he is giving out personal information. He claims that he is helping these people and yet he is exposing them from helping in the war efforts. Assange also infamously “edited the leaked video of a gunship attack by U.S. forces in Iraq to make it appear more damnable.” There is not enough said to take action against the law, however we must really dislike what he is doing and “dismiss him as the fraud that he is.”
The last article tells about why we need WikiLeaks mainstream media. It says that a bunch of “traditional news-gathering” cannot be replaced with the Internet. The author says that we need “news organizations, editors, or reporters.” Assange gave the media data of documents of shoot-outs and bombings. He knew that if he has a set time to decipher the code, they were not able to make it in time for the public. Because they had a deadline, WikiLeaks had no opportunity to do a real newspaper reporting, but until then they will be using interviews, memoirs, and other documentation from other sources. Having raw data provided "color” and details. These reports however showed only military failures such as human casualties and accidents. With more journalism, investigation and work, these documents become more valid instead of having less meaning.
The first article offers support for Wikileaks’ action. The article claims that the United States are no longer required to be in Afghanistan and it is no longer a matter of national security. The article supports Wikileaks by saying it exposes the truth and lets the public know that the war is no longer a matter of national security. The article also claims that there are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda members left and the documents expose a corrupt purpose for soldiers in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThe second article offers opposition to Wikileaks’ action. The article describes Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as “attention-craving” and “show-offy.” The article doesn’t praise Assange for delivering the truth, as the first article does. But instead criticizes him for jeopardizing the security of numerous soldiers and Afghan informants by mentioning them in the documents.
The third article demonstrates the need for mainstream media. The article shows how the original Wikileaks documents were worded. This way was not understandable by the public and needed to be translated by the media. The mainstream media has experienced journalists and reporters who can help report stories to the public and deliver the important information. The Wikileaks documents were not handled by the newspapers for long enough to do any real reporting.
In the article “Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers” support is shown very early for wikileaks. This article says wikileaks are “brilliant journalism” and that these leaks show how our president cares so little for our troops safety that he is willing to risk there lives and it isn't the leaks in media that are creating the problem. The leaders are more interested in keeping there jobs than showing the truth. The journalist Robert Scheer says the war in Afghanistan isn't because of national security but it is a regional issue. Our government brought Arab terrorists in to fight the holy war for us in Afghanistan. This article is really an inside look into our government records, some of the information was shocking to find out.
ReplyDeleteThe second article “What Does Julian Assange Want?” is talking about Julian Assange and the opposition of wikileaks in this article. He is the founder and prime mover of wikileaks. Assange has leaked a large amount of classifies military documents to the public. There are names of Afghan men in these document and now those men are in jeopardy of being persecuted. He calls himself an “anti-establishment truth seeker” But the real question of this article is what does Arrange want for all his efforts to leak top secret government information. No one is sure, he enjoys the attention he is getting from all this though. Won't the leaks be a threat to the national security? By doing this our enemies have a major advantage on us, they would know all our secrets. Assange can't get in trouble for any of this unless he is doing work with someone in the pentagon to get all the information he has leaked, all people plan to do is ignore the “puffed-up pimp” and all his fraud work.
The third article “WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media” shows the need for mainstream media. In this article is is clear that traditional journalism with editors and reporters with experience are need. Anybody can post whatever they want on the internet, you can't believe everything you read on there. Assange gave U.S. Information to the mainstream media who of course would try and figure out what it means but he did not give them enough time to fully understand the material before releasing it to the public, knowing that the public would have no clue what this information meant. Without investigating these articles more they will just be out there and of no use, it is raw information that nobody understands.
In The first article about Wikileaks there is a gratefulness for the documents revealed. This article quotes President Obama’s top national security adviser saying "that there are less than 100 foreign fighters left in Afghanistan. This statement shows Robert Scheer`s opinion that we should not be in Afghanistan. This article contains complete support for Wikileaks and their actions.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article “What Does Julian Assange Want?” Tunku Varadarajan expresses his dislike of the "data dump" that Wikileaks` founder exposed. Assange calls himself an “anti-establishment truth seeker” in his effort to uncover "war crimes" that American troops have committed. Varadarajan states that "Wikileaks is a brothel of self-promotion, Assange its puffed-up pimp." This article shows discontent with Wikileaks` actions and shows no support.
In the third and final article I can find neither support or opposition of Wikileaks` actions. This article explains them and states that they are just "raw data." It shows a need for mainstream media. Assange gave journalists little time to decipher these documents before releasing them on his website Wikleaks. Applebaum states that "without more journalism, more investigation, more work, these documents just don't matter that much."
The Website "WikiLeaks" finds its support in the article "Thank God for the Whistle Blowers", with the statement "What Wikileaks did was brilliant journalism".The article goes on to say that our leaders are not upset by the thougt of the relevations endangering troops, but rather endangering their own personal careers.The documents are proof that many missions are by far unrelated to the president’s agenda, and more on what Robert Scheer calls "prizes, passions and causes that are obsessively homegrown."The article says that we are focused on Al Qaeda, but in reality there are less than 100 foreign fighters in Afghanistan and they are hiding in Pakistan. As the leaked documents reveal, Pakistan is pretending to cooperate with us while supporting our enemies. The article ends with the strong statement, " We should be grateful to the whistle-blowers who gave us the Afghanistan war documents for once again letting us in on the sick joke that passes for US foreign policy."
ReplyDeleteThe second article “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud" is the extreme opposite of the first article, expressing strong opposistion against the website WikiLeaks and its actions. The article opens up with personal attacks on Julian Assange saying "With his bloodless, sallow face, his lank hair drained of all color, his languorous, very un-Australian limbs, and his aura of blinding pallor that appears to admit no nuance, Assange looks every inch the amoral, uber-nerd villain, icily detached from the real world of moral choices in which the rest of us saps live." Those comments right there make it seem like the author is taking WikiLeaks very personal. Assange is yet to say where he obtained the information for his website, which causes concern that he may very well be a fraud.The information he released has the possibility of putting lives in danger, but Assange does not seem to care. He has made it obvious that he loves all of the attention he is receiving for publishing WikiLeaks, however.
The third article “WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media” is a neutral site that says the founder of WikiLeaks has finally made a case for the"mainstream media". The author feels that for articles to be accurate, journalism with professional and experienced editors and reporters are needed. The information is not comprehendable by most of the public people anyway. "Without more journalism, more investigation, more work, these documents just don't matter that much."
The first article shows support for Wikileaks. Robert Scheer states that WikiLeaks is simply “brilliant journalism”. He said that it is our president who is sacrificing the lives of our men, not the work from WikiLeaks. The article states that there is no reason for there to be soldiers in Afghanistan. The article claims that there a fewer than 100 Al Qaeda there and that they are hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan is evidently working with us when they are really helping our enemies. The article states that the war was started because the U.S. was in their land, not the other way around. It started when the United States got involved with the Cold War by trying to humble the Soviets. It's hard to choose a side in this debate: Wikileaks or The U.S. Government, who is telling the truth?
ReplyDeleteThe second article shows blunt opposition to Wikileaks. The writer of the article, Tunku Varadarajan, states that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, is a fraud. Varadarajan critisizes Assange for releasing the names of soldiers and informants, putting them in danger. The article states that Assange is a shadowy, show-offy person. Varadarajan questions Assanges intentions in the article. Does Assange really want people to know this information for their well being? Or is it a case that Assange really doesnt want anything?, just a feeling of self-righteousness?, just an "Ego-Boost"?
The last article shows the need for mainstream media. The article states that the notion that the internet can replace traditional news-gathering has been revealed a myth. People can put whatever information they want on the internet, which means the information is not always true, Julian Assange is an example of this. Assange gave U.S. Information to the media who would then try and figure out what it meant. But Assange didn't give them enough time to figure out what the information meant before he then released it to the public. Assange knew that the U.S. citizens would have no idea what the information meant. Without editing and researching the information is just a bunch of letters and numbers that no one understands.
In the article "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers", all support for Wikileaks is shown. The article says that what wikileaks did was nothing but "brilliant journalism". This article informs us that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were the governments' fault because we have had troops stationed overseas for quite a while now. And, the article states that all the President seems to be doing, is sending our men overseas to risk their lives for nothing.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, "What Does Julian Assange Want?", we find the opposition to Wikileaks. This article suggests that Julain Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, is just putting everything out there to get attention. This article states that his information was actually stolen from American Military Intelligence from the vaults of the war in Afghanistan. And, apparently, Julian Assange made Wikileaks to show how much he does not like war. Wikileaks has been called the "world's first stateless news organization". And, Julian does not appear to feel humiliated or sad about the information that he has given the whole world to read.
In the third article, it expresses the need for the world to have mainstream data. This article suggests that the internet will never replace the traditional news-gatherings. The article states that information meant for the news needs to be edited for most people to understand. And, this article informs us that leaks are just raw data, and that any one person can put something on the internet that is not true just as easily as the next.
In the first article, "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers," Wiki Leaks are completely supported. In a way that the article states it is just a source of brilliant journalism. Robert Scheer states that the president has full responsibility for harming the troops, not wiki leaks. I learned that the wiki leaks are informing citizens on information about the war that Obama is trying to keep away from us to protect him. This is just supporting the statement that “political figures care more about their position than the safety of the public.” Our soldiers did not go into the war to support national security. The people think that the government is chasing Al Qaeda, this is also false information. Pakistan is supposedly working with us; however, they are really helping our enemies. I also learned because of our placement in Afghanistan, 9/11 occurred.
ReplyDeleteThe second article, "Wiki leaks Founder Julian Assange is a Fraud," does not support Wiki Leaks whatsoever. The article spends most of the time criticizing the founder Julian. He spends most of his time threatening the security of various soldiers and Afghan informants by mentioning them in the documents. However, he never explains how he receives the reports he informs us on, he also will never explain himself on his anti approval on war. Therefore, what does Julian Assange really want? Does he just want the attention which is the only credible answer I can come to the conclusion with, due to his improbable answers to all the interview questions.
In the third article, "Wiki leaks data-dump,” makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media. I learned that older news gathering is sometimes imperative, and cannot be replaced by Internet. The report from Assange would have been basically impossible for the pubic to read and comprehend. Due to this information, Assange gave the report to the mainstream media to begin with. However, enough time was not given for them to explain the message better, therefore; only negative information was released about the war.
The article that shows the most support for the wikileaks is "Thank God for the Whistle Blowers." The article author, Robert Scheer, calls the wikileaks "brillant journalism." The article claims that the president is unnecessarily sacrificing soldiers. The authors reaction to the leak document is "They are focused on prizes, passions and causes that are obsessively homegrown." Meaning we are not in this war because of 9/11. In the fact the article says the exact opposite, "9/11 happened because the United States was in the region." During the Reagan era the U.S. gave guns to freedom fighters in the middle east to try and defeat communism. These freedom fighters included Osama Bin Laden. Even one of Obama's advisors recalls giving missles to terrists during Vietnam. To wrap up, Robert thanks daniel Ellsberg who leaked the documents of the Veitnam War public and ends with "We should be grateful to the whistle-blowers who gave us the Afghanistan war documents for once again letting us in on the sick joke that passes for US foreign policy."
ReplyDeleteThe opposition of wikileaks came the second article "Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud." The article claimed that Assange did not release the documents to inform the people, but for his own personal gain. It says he is a villian giving judging by his looks and actions. The article gives him the name the "unileaker", and calls wikileaks a brothel for self promotion. Julian Assange has yet to reveal how he gained the documents or even a valid reason for releasing the documents in his many interviews. His says he edited them as not to put any lives at stake, but there are still very revealing parts.
The third article "WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media" supports the need for mainstream media. The article shows raw data from the documents. This couldn't be understood by an average person, it is in a sort of code. "At 1850Z, TF 2-2 using PREDATOR (UAV) PID insurgents emplacing IEDs at 41R PR 9243 0202, 2.7km NW of FOB Hutal, Kandahar." the Guardian found out that this was a sort of fire That is just a little bit of the code. The wikileaks leader released the code to the media first but gave them a deadline. Some could figure out individual parts, but the media did not have enough time to analyze the data before it was released to the public. This proves that the mainstream media is useful in researching and working hard to discover the questions/secrets of today.
In the first article, “Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers” it supports WikiLeaks’ actions. Robert Scheer first starts to describe Wikileaks as, “brilliant journalism” and says it does well with revealing the truth. When talking about Richard Nixon, it states Nixon rages over the publication of the Pentagon papers, but Wikileaks lets us know that our president is who, “unnecessarily sacrifices the lives of our soldiers.” Throughout the article it also brings up 9/11, and how “9/11 occurred because the United States was in the region, and not the other way around.” Disagreeing with the “half-true” statement Robert Gibbs made when he said, “We are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11.”
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud” it opposes Wikileaks’ actions completely. Tunku Varadarajan starts off by calling out on Julian Assange, comparing him to an, “Uber-nerd Villain” calling him, “a shadowy show-offy little outfit.” He calls him those names due to Julian Assange revealing the documents about Afghanistan. This article is just the complete opposite of the first article, when the first article agrees with Julian Assange in almost every way, but the second article does not at all.
In the third article, “WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media” the article gives good reason for the need of mainstream media. In the article it shows and describes what mainstream media does and what it does is put a story into simpler form so it is easier to understand. Without mainstream media you would not be able to understand the story.
The first article "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers" is all in favor in the Wikileaks and regards the acts as good journalism. It points out the hard to grasp thought that because of us being in the region of the world we are in the 9/11 attacks were the result of it.Hard for some people to believe. Our government recruited terrorists to go to afganistan and fight in the holy war against communism. Daniel Ellsberg made the Vietnam war public and now the Whistle-Blowers uncovering the truth about the afganistan war
ReplyDeleteIn the second article is very unsupporting of the wikileaks founder Julian Assange and thinks he is a horrible person for doing what he did. The main thing i got from this article was the many different names they called him to argue their point. This article was attacking him just becaused he unveiled the truth about the war. He still has no humility and no doubt that what he did was the right thing to do. This article greatly stresses the opposing side to the first article.
The third article it tells how wikileaks made mainstream media more noticed. it helps stress the issue that anyone can post raw data on the internet. When you come to something as vast as the internet it becomes hard to tell facts frome fake, but seeing this raw information from the war it helps strenghten peoples thoughts on the reliability of the internet. In a way the information is useless because the people who are reading it may not be well enough informed.
In the article "Thank God for the Whisle-Blowers," WikiLeaks actions are supported. WikiLeaks revealed that the govenment has low regard for the truth in why the 9/11 attacks happened. The government is focused on Al Qaeda instead of the problems with Pakistan who is "pretending" to cooperate with the U.S. troops. WikiLeaks reveals the Government is saying we are in the war beacuse of the 9/11 attacks, but really we were involved before 9/11. It goes back as far as the Ronald Regan administration which recruited Arab terrist to go fight in the Holy War against the Communist. According to WikiLeaks our presents and interfearance in their war was the cause of the 9/11 attacks.
ReplyDeleteIn The article "What Does Julian Assange Want," WikiLeaks' actions are not supported. The article reveals that WikiLeaks information may not be truthful but for self indulgent reasons. The information in WikiLeaks is putting informants in danger by revealing thier names and information about their homes. This article suggest that Julian Assange is a fraud and a "puffed-up pimp."
In the article "WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media," reveals that a lot of information is not very useful without the mainstream media to do furter investigating. Without further investigating it really means nothing, if you do not know all the circumstances surounding the situation envolved.
The first article supports WikiLeaks actions. Robert Scheer said what they did was brilliant journalism. He also says that it is our president who sacrifices the lives of our soldiers. This article also talks about 9/11. The truth is that 9/11 happened because the United States was in the region and not the other way around. Robert also said that "we should be grateful for thhet Afghanistan war documents for once again letting us in on this sick joke that passes for US foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteArticle two totally opposes the WikiLeaks actions. In the whole article Tunku is basically just putting Julian down and saying mean things about him. He says that Julian doesn't even care about the war and calls him a villain. Tunku says that if people really knew what he was doing to get in trouble he would be but right now there is no proof. He is basically calling him a fraud.
Article three gives good reason for the need of mainstream media. There were 92,000 documents full of Afghanistan intelligence that were released to the public. Jullian understands the code and tells it too us through The New York Times. There are no journals or newspapers being used. These documents still need more journalism, more investigation and more work.
"Thank God For The Whistle Blowers" is the article that gives support for wikileaks. This article praised Wikileaks journalism and the way they thrive for the truth. Wikileaks is also telling people things that President Obama is keeping from them about the war. Wikileaks has also leaked information about the 9/11 attacks.
ReplyDeleteThe second article talked about how much people were unsupportive of Julian Assange. They criticized him for leaking information about the United States military. It also explains how Assange is very arrogant now that the information has been leaked. The article says that Assange didn't care if he put others in danger by putting peoples names in his leaked information.
The third article shows the need for the mainstream media. If Assange would have put the documents on the internet uninterpreted it would have been hard for anyone to understand it. So Assange delivered it to the media to interpret. Doing this caused them to print it without putting both sides of the information. The people only got to read the bad things about the war. If there would have been more time they could have also explained the good things too.
WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteIn the first article "Thank God for the Whistle Blowers" the actions of the Wikileaks is greatly supported. The article says that it was brilliant journalism. the leaking of the documents shows the people what is really going on with the war in Afghanistan. The government has us thinking that the reason why we are there is because of members of Al-Quada and because of the terrorists attacks on 9/11. The truth is that there are very few Al-Quada members left and the reason for the 9/11 attacks were because we were invading Afghanistan during the Cold War. The article does not give any opposition to the leaking of the documents. The article says that letting the public read the true documents will show the truth about the government and the War in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article there is no support for the documents released on WikiLeaks. This article is all about how the journalist that released the documents is very cold and did not have the right to release government documents on the war in Afghanistan. The article tells how Assange thinks of himself as doing a good deed for putting the documents on WikiLeak. The article says that there is no need for WikiLeak to be putting documents for the public to see that they were not meant to see. It is a major difference between how people fell about the leak in this article to how they felt in the first article.
In the third article there is some support for the documents released on WikiLeak. The article says that it is good that more data is now able to be accessed through the internet. The documents provide us with raw data and color. The leak also gives newspapers something to write about and publish. The article also tells about some of the bad things about the leak. Most of the public won't be able to really understand what the documents are saying. Without more journalism and investigation the documents just don't matter that much. The article says that the leak has made an ironclad case for the mainstream media. A lot of the media are talking about the leak. They are saying both good and bad things.
In the first article complete support is shown for wikileaks and that it is full of good journalism. this article says that because we have interfered in the middle east the 9/11 attacks occurred. this article states that our president is the one sacrificing soldiers willingly. the article also states that even though there are fewer than 100 Al Qaede members are left in the region and that they are mostly in Pakistan.
ReplyDeletein the second article mostly opposition to the wikileaks site is shown. the article attacked the wikileaks founder for revealing the truth to the public. the article also shoes that Assange is enjoying all the attention he is getting from this conflict. the article also suggest that Assange could be a fraud due to him not telling how his information was obtained and for what reasons.
The last article shows that anything can be put on the internet true or false. Assange put 92,000 documents on the internet but not many people can understand the information which show that this kind of information can be both useful or useless depending on a person personal knowledge on the subject.
In the first article complete support is shown for wikileaks and that it is full of good journalism. this article says that because we have interfered in the middle east the 9/11 attacks occurred. this article states that our president is the one sacrificing soldiers willingly. the article also states that even though there are fewer than 100 Al Qaede members are left in the region and that they are mostly in Pakistan.
ReplyDeletein the second article mostly opposition to the wikileaks site is shown. the article attacked the wikileaks founder for revealing the truth to the public. the article also shoes that Assange is enjoying all the attention he is getting from this conflict. the article also suggest that Assange could be a fraud due to him not telling how his information was obtained and for what reasons.
The last article shows that anything can be put on the internet true or false. Assange put 92,000 documents on the internet but not many people can understand the information which show that this kind of information can be both useful or useless depending on a person personal knowledge on the subject.
In the first article "Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers" there is support for the wikileaks offered. Robert Scheer says that it is the president harming the troops, not wikileaks. The wikileaks are telling us that we are in war for the wrong reasons.It was because of the involvement with Afghanistan that 9/11 happened. Also the wikileaks gace us information about the war that Obama was tring to kkep a secret.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a Fraud" it talks about all the opposition for the wikileaks.the article talks about how Julian Assange likes the attention from everything. The author says that Assange is anti-war and he never tells a reason for releasing the reports. He also did not say how he ended up with the reports. He said that he edited the report. Assange does not care aboput putting many lives in danger.
In the third article "Wikileaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media" talks about the need of mainstream media. the article makes it clear that anyone can post data on the internet. Assange sent documents to mainstream media so that they could explain them better to the public for him. Assange did not give them enough time so mostly the bad news got let out to the public. over time they have released the good news also.
Supports for Wikileaks’ actions are found entirely in the first article. The author, Robert Scheer is in complete support with Wikileaks and tells the reader that the political leaders of the nation do not care about the lives of our troops overseas; they only care about their own personal careers as politicians. The first article also explains that we are no longer fighting a war on terrorism and the reason that we are in this war is because we wanted to prove the Soviets wrong by invading Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteAll of the opposition for the action is given in the second article. Author Tunku Varadarajan is very clearly not happy with Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Varadarajan clearly states that he believes that Assange is a warmonger from the beginning. Varadarajan believes that Assange only did this so he could get his 15 minutes of fame in the media. There is no other evidence of why Assange would release the files else wise.
The need for the media is shown in the third article. It shows that whether something is really newsworthy or not, it can and will be displayed. It shows that getting a story out in a shorter amount of time is better than putting out a story that is well researched and true. You also never seem to hear of good things that are happening in Afghanistan, only the negatives.
The leaking of these documents considering the war in Afghanistan exposed secrets that the federal government has been hiding from the public. This is why people support Wikileaks, so the “faults” of the U.S. government about this war and the 9/11 attacks are finally said and the supposed truth is told. The article “Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers” shows support for these previous leaks. The author, Robert Scheer, says the leaked papers contain a basis of local Pakistani hustles that could potentially rise to the threat of a national security level. These documents also say the real reasons that 9/11 started: we were in their region before the terrorist attacks. It all goes back to when Jimmy Carter decided to put religious influences in the Middle East. Since then the United States has been trying to influence many aspects of their territory. These papers also talk about Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s top civilian adviser on Afghanistan. He was the man to give heat seeking Stinger rockets to the people who then turned them against us, according to the leaked documents. Many people are now grateful for what Wikileaks did, so now they are “letting us in on the sick joke that passes for US foreign policy.” Robert Scheer.
ReplyDelete“What does Julian Assange Want?” author Tunku Varadarajan is opposed to the actions of Wikileaks’ founder and prime mover Julian Assange. Varadarajan’s main concern is the possible endangered lives of Afghan informants who work for the U.S. troops. According to the article, The Times of London states that these leaked documents in the Wikileaks’ archive have exposed hundreds of names of local collaborators in the war effort. Supposedly details of the villages where these people live are also in the documents. Assange said that these papers were edited so that there was “harm minimization,” and the collaborators’ identities were protected.
Anne Applebaum makes a good point in the article that she wrote. “WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media” explains Applebaum’s point towards the need of the mainstream media. Traditional news- gathering is needed in the case of these leaked Afghanistan papers. These papers have to be deciphered to be understood. There are random excerpts from different events going on in the war zone. These papers do have specific times when the events happened, but not specific dates. The reasons why these things happened are not listed, so it is the job of real journalists to find out which events were necessary to the cause of the war, and which ones weren’t. One leaked paper describes a shootout between different units of the Afghanistan police. Was this a standard shooting of friendly fire? Or did the shootout reflect a bigger cause referring to the war? Now the media has an influencing factor of the future of these Wikileaks papers. If journalists were there in Afghanistan when these events took place, they could’ve helped put the leaked documents together. Without more work and investigation going towards these documents, then they will not be that useful towards the American society.