Official Rhetoric About Leakers and Whistleblowers, Translated

Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg: all whistleblowers and leakers of government secrets, all characterized by the US government and its media allies as “arrogant” and/or possibly insane.

8 thoughts on “Official Rhetoric About Leakers and Whistleblowers, Translated

  1. “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

    TJ said some radically democratic things.

    Many of them he could have made better by meaning them.

    https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1600.htm

    I thinks he meant to say “[If] the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people” making it a conditional, leaving an escape clause. because that is how he treated it.

  2. Today is May 4, anniversary of the Kent State shootings. We could have used a few whistleblowers to reveal what they knew after the shooting. There are still questions that have never been answered. Thank God everyone knew to keep their mouths shut like good little Germans.

    • This particular 4 May, Alex, is also the centennial of another event with students as protagonists, viz, the demonstrations which started in China as a response to the betrayal of that country by the Powers at Versailles, and which led to the creation of today’s People’s Republic. An anniversary the importance of which, not only for China, but the world as a whole, becomes clearer with every passing year….

      Henri

  3. Hi Henri,

    A critical factor in the tragedy of our era is the transformation of “the press” from its original, intended, role as uber government overseer to obsequious kisser of the ample, if powerful, ass of said government.

    The point I made is that found in the Wikipedia article “United States diplomatic cables leak” (by Wikileaks). The “key publishers” of the substance of the leaks are noted (in a sidebar) to be: El País, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Guardian, The New York Times & WikiLeaks.

    While you note the hypocrisy of NYT commentators on the topic, I note the same of the New York Times itself … neither much of a surprise.

    (While rummaging for the info above I found that the NY Times has it own version of the vile and exceptionally odious Jennifer Rubin of the WaPo — one Michelle Goldman — who I recommend reading ONLY when one has need to completely evacuate the alimentary canal … by “reverse flow.”)

    • Hypocrisy on the part of the corporate media in North America and Europe no longer calls forth much of a reaction on my part, falco ; I suppose I’ve become inured. But I must confess that I was disappointed to note how so many of my fellow commentators (at least those whose posts the journal chose to publish) followed the Party line. Perhaps I am naive – after all, we have one of this sort which pleases to post to this forum (albeit here very much in the minority) – but I had hoped for better….

      Henri

  4. Much thanks, Ted, for not merely noticing, but daring to write/draw about the treatment meted out to, among others, Julian Paul Assange. Quite a contrast with the attitude adopted by people who call themselves «journalist» and who loudly proclaim that journalism is under siege, but when confronted with the case of Mr Assange, justify his treatment by saying «he’s not a journalist», and claim that Mr Assange, unlike, it is to be understood, themselves, suffers from a big ego….

    It would be amusing, were it not so sad, to see columnists like Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post (12 April 2019, no link, given the limitations on Ted’s forum – look it up !) and posters to the commentary threads on e g, the New York Times procaliming their support for Daniel Ellsberg while vilifying Mr Assange, without of course, acknowledging what Mr Ellsberg has had to say about Mr Assange’s work. But as we know, money walks, bullshit talks….

    Henri

    • Hi Henri,

      Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true that the New York Times proclaimed its “support for Daniel Ellsberg while vilifying Mr Assange, without of course, acknowledging” that it had re-published Mr Assange’s original information?

      • Falco, the specific New York Times article cum commentary thread I had in mind can be found here. Note the absence of any moving defence in the article of the right of journalists and publishers to publish matter which government might find uncomfortable ; nor have I seen any leaders/editorials to that effect in the paper. But that which inspired me to post my own comment was not so much the article itself, but the hypocrisy on the part of many of my fellow commentators, who bleated «Assange bad, Ellsberg good», while failing to note what, in fact, Daniel Ellsberg has to say about Julian Paul Assange and his work….

        On the other hand, as we who have the privilege of following Ted here know, it’s all the fault of those dastardly Russians…. 😉

        Henri

Leave a Reply