On Wikileaks, and the curse of expectations:

[Robb]

I don't think there's a soul among us who didn't grin and rub their hands together eagerly the first time they read about Wikileaks. The notion of anonymous whistleblowers getting a safe place to drop damning stuff from anywhere in the world, and they'd make sure it got to the right reporters? Fan-freaking-tastic. I sent money, because it sounded awesome.

But expectations are a tough thing to live up to. Ask our President, for example. Wikileaks has had more to live up to every time it scored a goal -- a sports metaphor. Julian Assange may be many things, but a keen judge of human nature he isn't. If he were, he'd have paid more attention to sports -- particularly our species' ability to move goal posts.

We saw it in a matter of hours, from both sides: those who are against the latest diplomatic cable dump have said, nearly in the same breath, that the information is trite palace-intrigue gossip, even as it threatens U.S. diplomatic efforts worldwide. Similarly, those who support Assange's latest release argue both that the transparency is critical to the very survival of a vital democracy -- and, simultaneously, that the leaks are seemingly trivial because the "real dirty stuff" the government is doing would never be written down.

And we wonder why the ball never actually moves? :D

Not that Assange isn't the king of irony in his own right; the ferocity with which he guards attempts to un-rebrand his own history is well known in journalism circles. Bringing up his early attempts at "hacktivism" is a great way to bring an interview to a huffy close. As rumors of countless internal fallings-out swirl, calls for transparency within the ranks of Wikileaks itself, he argues, are character assassination meant to damage the organization and chill potential leakers. In his last interview he even went so far as to chide Wikileaks spin-offs and imitators for having inadequate security measures in place, pointing out how his own organization has grown because people trust their privacy and anonymity will be protected.

...Did he really say that? http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/">Yup.

"Our pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises, and our ability to publish is increasing linearly."

Interviewer: You mean as your personal profile rises?

"Yeah, the rising profile of the organization and my rising profile also. And there’s a network effect for anything to do with trust. Once something starts going around and being considered trustworthy in a particular arena, and you meet someone and they say “I heard this is trustworthy,” then all of a sudden it reconfirms your suspicion that the thing is trustworthy. So that’s why brand is so important, just as it is with anything you have to trust."

No one in their right mind would expect Assange and Wikileaks to be held to the same standard of a government, of course. But Wikileaks has been a grand disappointment, I think, for the same reasons we find ourselves periodically disappointed in government: repeated expressions of lofty ideals raise expectations, whether they write them in press releases or stamp them on coins. The set-up in enormous, and the payoff has to match it.

The sheer volume of the latest release may be, on its surface, enough to "top" the last one. But what next? The entire operation continues to lack consequence -- no one has yet to be fired, much less indicted, for crimes revealed by any of the latest leaks. The only arrest so far has been of the alleged leaker himself. Even Assange isn't really a target, breathless "insurance file" announcements to the contrary; the feds have made is clear their investigations will continue to focus on the source of the leaked information, an avenue that will get them a conviction -- and the most bang, shutting-up-leakers-wise, for their buck. Assange is probably the safest man on the planet; no one with two brain cells to rub together would risk creating a martyr in the information wars.

No one has asked Assange the most important question about all this, and the one I would if I could: are you genuinely surprised that the world hasn't changed?

Is anyone?

[de novo]

1. There is no need for each leak to 'top' the other.

That is your arbitrary measure. What needs to be is the effective means to release information. That is intact.

Unrec for more attempts at character assassination.

[Robb]

4. You describe Wikileaks as "effective." What is the effect?

[de novo]

17. Information dissemination.

Raising awareness. Whether a release is a blockbuster isn't as important as maintaining the means to disseminate information. Some will be critical, some will be mundane. Most will be ignored, but knowledge is power. The effects may be so subtle that most people will never see them. But, there is inherent value in access to information and flow of information.

[Robb]

19. OK. But now say you're Bradley Manning.

You're looking at life in prison. Is that enough?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. How did he get caught? -nt

[KharmaTrain]

2. Very Well Put...

Kinda reminds me of Fitzmas...lots of hope and projections, but what was promised definitely wasn't what was delivered.

I had the chance to look at the cables...lots of interesting things there and many things that verified the rumors and assumptions many of us had, however, the revelations were not much more than water cooler gossip in written form. It was embarassing without much revelation from first-hand participants. And it was more of a chuckle around the diplomatic world than a game changer. Just showed us how diplomats "trash" talk (to use your sports metaphor).

The other thing that hurts the credibility is Assange. This isn't because of his personality but the fact he's a foreigner. The Pentagon Papers were a bombshell since they were revealed by an insider...as was Deep Throat in Watergate. Their revelations were specific right at the centers of power while Wikileaks deals in second and third person...thus its credibility can always be suspect.

The value of Wikileaks will be for the historians who will use this material as a side narratives.

Cheers...

[bigmonkey]

21. Doesn't the fact that he's a "foreigner" affect his legal status.

Palin, O'Reilly et al. would have half a case for their "treason" bleating if he were an American citizen.

[KharmaTrain]

23. You're Asking Logic From The Unhinged...

Aren't they already calling for his assasination? If he were an American they'd be associating him with George Soros (they probably are anyway). Ironically, if this had exposed that President Obama was born in Kenya, they'd call him a "patriot".

Cheers...

[LaurenG]

3. I wanted the revelations to change the course of the future

I wanted those in power (the corporate heads who I believe truly rule the world, along with the oil giants in the ME) to be exposed for the heartless, gutless greedy pieces of garbage that they are.

Am I surprised it didn't happen, no, but one can always hope.

[Major Hogwash]

5. One thing that it has proven so far that is true -- the US is wasting trillions of dollars spying

To learn mundane bullshit!

At least that I have seen from what has been released so far.
I couldn't care less if Khaddafi has a hot Ukrainian nurse at his side all of the time.
Good for him!

Or finding out what brand of cigar is Castro's favorite.
Shit, I can't get them here in the states anyway - there's a ridiculous stupid out-dated embargo on trading with Cuba in place.

And I have to say, that the amount of crap that has come out with all of the smart ass comments being made by our so-called Diplomatic Corps about other world leaders is sophomoric at the very least.

Is that supposed to be OO7-style stuff?
Because to me, it sounded more like 7th grade stuff!!

The CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and the other 26 secret federal organizations that have built the ginormous octopus with tentacles reaching anywhere and everywhere of their secret society over the last 65 years has been draining the resources of our treasury for no good whatsoever.

Prosecute the assholes responsible for outing Valerie Plame and blowing her cover, and the entire operation she was involved with, and stunts like this data dump will no longer be necessary!

[jeff47]

7. Mundane bullshit is how you get things done

Khaddafi's "nurse" isn't interesting in and of itself. However, it's important to know if you're going to be negotiating with him. It gives you a window into his personality, which you can then exploit.

And sending Castro a box of his favorite cigars would probably be helpful if the US wanted to start negotiating with him.

World leaders are human beings. If you know their personalities, or give them the shiny things they particularly like, you will get much further in negotiating with them.

[Major Hogwash]

18. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.

I don't see any value in spending trillions of dollars on that crap just to find that crap out.

[jeff47]

25. They aren't spending any money on it.

These diplomats are finding out this information in the course of their normal duties.

Diplomat meets with the undersecretary of whatever in Venezuela, who casually mentions that Castro loves a particular brand of cigars. He reports that fact, but he was still going to have the meeting whether or not he learned it.

[cali]

6. excellent analysis

thanks

[mike_c]

8. unrec....

Frankly, I don't care if WikiLeaks is not a perfect organization or if its policies and decisions are too closely tied to the cult of Assange's personality. Sure, I'd like it better if WikiLeaks was so pure and uncomplicated that it was utterly above question. That it isn't is simply an expression of the great need for SOMEONE to perform the services it provides, and the rush to provide them in an imperfect world.

WikiLeaks is doing what needs to be done-- as Justice Brandei said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," and WikiLeaks is doing more than just about anyone out there presently to throw open the drapes and let some air into the fusty miasma of ruling and doing business in a failing imperial state. If there were many such institutions like, say-- a real investigative press-- and if WikiLeaks fell way behind them on a continuum of transparency and effective revelation, then I would simply dismiss them and vote with my feet by focusing upon other sources of illumination. But that's just not the case. NO ONE seems to be doing the job that WikiLeaks has taken on, and their courage in doing so goes a long way toward helping me overlook the occasional imperfection in their organization or their approach.

If it were up to me, I would change a few things about the way Assange and WikiLeaks make their revelations, but I'm not the one with access to the servers, and since no one else is doing much to improve the situation other than whining about Assange's imperfections, I'm more than willing to thank him and WikiLeaks for being there when no one else is.

Subtle attacks on WikiLeaks that seek to undermine it's credibility and damning-with-faint-praise character assassination of Assange are among the worst forms of intellectual dishonesty, IMO. If you find the transparency uninteresting or less than useful, move on and find your information somewhere else-- if you can. That's the rub. Or participate yourself. WikiLeaks gets major props in my world simply for being willing to undertake the task, especially when no one else seems as willing or as capable. If you disagree with the basic premise that transparency in government and business is better for all concerned than running the nation and its commerce through labyrinthine series of nested, secret agendas, then simply disengage and take responsibility for maintaining your own ignorance. I'm reminded of the lament of those addicted to bad television-- "But I don't want to turn it off!"

[Robb]

9. Since no one else is doing it, we can't criticize the way this one does it?

Really?

[mike_c]

10. one can always criticise anything....

I think your criticisms lack relevance and credibility. You're making the same mistake Obama is making-- although in fairness, I don't think his actions are anything less than calculated-- calling the messenger into question because you find the message embarrassing or unwelcome. Like Obama, you seem to care little about the unethical and downright criminal behavior of U.S. institutions, but you are angry that WikiLeaks is shining a light on them. It's among the oldest of political dodges-- blame the messenger and undermine THEIR credibility rather than truth demanding from government about the revelations themselves.

Obama has followed in Nixon's footsteps by demanding prosecution of those who leak the embarrassing secrets rather than pursuing the perpetrators of government crimes themselves. That knowledge alone is important. When faced with criminal or unethical behavior in office or on behalf of U.S. interests, Obama, like Nixon, wants to "get that son-of-bitch" for revealing venality and criminality, rather than doing anything to end the venality itself. He wants to target the people who shine a light on corruption, rather than those who are corrupt. This is very telling. You might choose not to listen-- and that is your right-- but I'm very interested in learning what secret agendas are being pursued in my name.

[Robb]

13. Because I criticize Assange, I "care little about criminal behavior"?

...I'm "angry" about things? "Choosing not to listen"?

You undermine your own position. It's possible you see no irony in Assange's position on secrecy, because you lack the perspective to see the irony in accusing others of attacking the messenger and then proceeding to do the same thing. :D

[mike_c]

20. there is a particularly chicken shit rhetorical technique wherein one party...

...seeks to undermine the position of the other by erecting irrelevant straw men, generally mined from statements lifted out of context. It's all you've indulged in during this conversation. Rather than address matters of substance, you erect straw men with personal referents, i.e. "Because I criticize Assange, I 'care little about criminal behavior.' You will not actually find that accusation in my comments, of course, because it isn't there. I was discussing a pattern of discourse, not accusing you of any thing whatsoever. If you choose to wear that shoe, well, take responsibility for it yourself. Believe it or not, this discussion isn't about you.

I'm sick today. 'Bye.

[Robb]

24. Physician, heal thyself.

I'll check my Plato for where to categorize "chicken shit" as a rhetorical form, I guess. ;)

[bemildred]

11. Interesting interview, thanks for that.

I certainly hope that Mr Assange's enemies continue to indulge in these fatuous attempts to smear him.

[nessa]

12. I wonder about this..

"that the leaks are seemingly trivial because the "real dirty stuff" the government is doing would never be written down".

It's probably true. Could the sheer volume of these leaks and their trivial nature be something that could cause folks not to look for anything deeper? People will think these leaks are all there is, if there was more Assange would have found, so there must not be anything more. Could it all be a huge diversion?

[PeaceNikki]

14. Bravo, Robb.

Good points, all.

[Lisa D]

15. Good analysis

Thanks for your insight.

[TayTay]

16. I had no expectations that the Wikileaks docs would change anything

not in this instance or in any prior instance. The documents were just that, documents and were leaked to newspapers who then did analysis on them. In and of themselves, these documents don't have value. The value is in somehow placing them in a context, with meaning.

This is difficult, time-consuming and expensive to do. I do not understand those who think that this kind of thing should have some immediate payoff. What kind of payoff did you really think would happen? Why do all payoffs have to be so immediate to be of consequence?

Last summer the Washington Post did an excellent series of articles on the bloated nature of the National Security industry in the US. The intelligence community was vastly expanded in the wake of 9/11. Over 800,000 (or more) people have these top security clearances. Yet we are no safer than we were before 9/11. The buildup in security systems seems to have bought us nothing. Much of that security apparatus exists to service itself, nothing more.

I thought about the Wikileaks docs in terms of that series from the WaPost. I think the US still treasures secrets not worth the keeping. That would mean that, for me, the very banality of the content of these documents is the point here. How much blood, treasure and effort is expended in keeping secrets not worth the keeping?

[bluedigger]

26. I agree with most of your analysis, Robb.

But I hardly think that Assange is the safest man on the planet, nor that TPTB are particularly worried about creating a martyr. He is challenging the Establishment, which lives in the Now, not the Future. He's going to piss the wrong folks off, and they aren't going to worry about creating a martyr, because he has no movement, the shallowest of ideology, and no followers of conviction. They would much prefer to deliver an object lesson, and I fear he will be lucky to be a footnote of history.