http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/...ks_one_percent
Still no effect.
Hope is the denial of reality
The more 'shocking' revelations with regards to my own country have more impact on national politics than diplomats. E.g. a high ranked public servant asking Americans to pressure a cabinet member of ours, which is not really how it is supposed to work, effectively backstabbing a minister.
By the way, Al Jazeera leaked a load of documents about the Israel/Palestine peace process!
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Hope is the denial of reality
I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised at how the Times handled the data, especially their courtesy in giving the government a chance to suggest why certain details or documents might be obscured or removed for security reasons. Granted, it didn't stop Wikileaks from posting the documents in full, but it demonstrates a sense of responsibility that many 'leakers' fail to do. Of course, it might just have been the NYTimes trying to preserve their access to high level officials in the government by some form of quid pro quo (giving them the heads up prior to potentially damaging documents are published). But I get a sense that they were acting as professionals (as, to a lesser extent, was the Guardian), which is a sharp contrast to Assange's public behavior.
I'm also struck again by how much these cables and the like paint a fairly flattering picture of the US. Oh, yes, there are embarrassing moments at times, but most of the diplomatic cables paint our diplomats as level-headed, smart, occasionally clever or witty, and above all restrained in the use of American power. There is little of the arm-twisting and machinations we might have expected to see, let alone some absurdly confrontational Amerocentric stance. Rather they are measured, thoughtful, and frequently correct.
Even the 'war logs' show the US military in a fairly positive light (although it does call some of our strategy into question, which is hardly news). Use of military force appears to be carefully calibrated, and there are no major skeletons in the closet that were revealed. Rather, they painted a picture of a thinly stretched military trying mightily to fulfill a difficult directive in a fairly professional and competent manner.
I understand why the US government has been unhappy with the release of these documents, but they generally tell us little we didn't already know, and more broadly paint the far-reaching arms of American power in fairly positive terms, as professionals working hard to keep the world running smoothly.
I'm just starting to read this, but my initial impression is the sort of contradiction between Bill Keller basically bitching-out the personality traits of the person he is nonetheless getting source material from (and writing an eBook about).
So what? I don't think there's any problem with disliking your source (or in fact finding them extremely difficult to work with) and using their material. If it's relevant, who cares how likable the guy is?Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I take that back. Now that I've read the full thing they balanced it well. Ultimately, everything in that essay could have been said with half as many words.
Now that I can agree with. Long winded would be an understatement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote