General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Cryptome pushes Greenwald's ZOMG button. [View all]OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Perhaps that explains why there's a lack of participation on this thread by transparency purists. Perhaps they're trapped in the wreckage. Perhaps all of their saviors are too busy snapping photos of the carnage to lend a helping hand.
It's an honest discussion to be had amongst those who advocate for open-everything. Is there a conflict between exposition of wrongdoing and reaping a profit in the process? Are oligarchs excused when they do a public service - even when they stand to increase their wealth as a result?
And what is a journalist in the 21st century? Greenwald, who proclaims to eschew conventional journalism by practicing the advocacy sort - at a lucrative rate? Or Cryptome, who offers open-source everything they can get their mitts on - for free, and for whom, accordingly, no recompense finds its way?
What of the general good? Compensation notwithstanding, if there is a public need-to-know, how is said public better served? By dribbling out bits and pieces of information, Greenwald-style or by dumping the entire docket all at once, Ellsberg-style?
Would that the cadre of Constitution-loving, whistleblower-championing fierce advocates join the conversation. I think that would be splendid.