Wikileaks co-founder speaks about the "Collateral Murder" video | Hacker News Reader

Wikileaks co-founder speaks about the "Collateral Murder" video

youtube.com

32 pointssteve1916 comments

It's amazing to me that this guy doesn't realize what terrible damage he's doing to Wikileaks' credibility by editorializing this so aggressively. In one swoop they've gone in my mind from neutral champion of transparency to just another advocacy group. It doesn't help if one happens to agree with the advocacy, either; what is destructive is that the ideological agenda is so obvious. (So, it seemed to me watching this, is his smug self-satisfaction.)

What a shame.

Spot on. Wikileaks should simply present the information, NOT editorialize, or even analyze beyond verification of veracity.

They are destroying their credibility faster than they're increasing their profile. Effectively they're making this about them, and they are forgetting that they should simply be a neutral conduit.

I have a strong feeling we're watching a pivot in progress, setting up a new domain name and releasing the video there is a big step in that direction.

I'm sorry, I totally disagree. I find his comments totally sensible.

That's not the point.

Whether you find his comments sensible or reprehensible doesn't alter the fact that he's moving Wikileaks away from its traditional role. In doing so he risks destroying its most compelling feature and diminishing the impact of future leaks.

Wikileaks has provided articles about certain leaks when people who them.

I do not understand why people are so eager to blame Wikileaks for doing something wrong with this release. It is showing a gross injustice which has not been shown before.

Sensible or not, they aren't neutral, and they imply that Wikileaks would not be hospitable to leaks that (for instance) enhance the credibility of US foreign policy.

And if they're taking sides on this story, what other stories have they taken sides on?

I think that's the "credibility" issue here. Wikileaks could have enormous value as a vector for transparency and accountability. But they may sacrifice some of that value by also trying to be an issue advocate.

I think there is currently no other alternative than to appear to be a brand-name organization, in order to encourage whistleblowers. These people need to know that their submissions are secure, their name withheld forever and their contribution exposed to the public. This would not happen at all without some amount of editorializing in order to broaden the mass appeal. I'm not condoning Wikileaks' behavior - I just see no currently viable alternative for whistleblowing.

Deep Throat was seriously editorialized as well. Wikileaks is a step in the right direction, towards more openness. Absolute openness will take some time.

Honestly I'd accept their actions more if they split the media side of things from the whistleblower side.

So Wikileaks stays as simply a conduit of information - and Sunshine Press (or whatever) can editorialize how they wish....

Totally agree, great idea. They should split the procurement part from the editorializing through chinese walls or something like that. It's interesting to see how they changed course. Some months ago they talked about giving some media (interested, big outlets) privileged prior access to leaks in order to enable them to prepare complete stories to be released at the same date as the leak.

Looks like they think they can do a better job of editorializing than the big outlets, which weakens their neutrality. But it's a difficult job after all. Hopefully, they'll change course again.

Here is a great article about the inner workings of Wikileaks: http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/10/start/...

The link doesn't work because the HN software strips out the single quote after "wikileaks" in the URL. This works: http://tinyurl.com/ylydrlj.

Despite what both the interviewer and Assange say, it's simply not true that Wikileaks has uncovered any meaningful information about this story. They have not broken a US coverup. Virtually every detail in the video has already been disclosed. An article recounting most of the details of the video --- from the killing of the prone reporter to the firing on the apparently unarmed men in the van --- appeared in the Washington Post last year. It even quoted the audio track from the video.

It is also simply not true that Reuters was unable to see this video after filing a FOIA request. Reuters saw the video in 2007. What they were not allowed to do was to retain a copy.

The more I watch of this the clearer it becomes to me that this Wikileaks video release has a lot more to do with Wikileaks than it does with war crimes.

Stating that Wikileaks has not uncovered any meaningful information is quite a stretch. It's true that WaPo and NYT have already covered most of the factual details of the incident - the WaPo reporter was supposedly embedded with the troups arriving on the scene shortly afterwards.

You're mixing up your timeline. Reuters staff were able to view the material released by US Central Command (military investigation write-up and selected photographs) and also the video itself once, before they were told to file an FOIA request for it, but their FOIA request for the video was rejected multiple times. The relevant question remained whether the shootings were justified under Rules Of Engagement and also whether what the military stated was true.

I think it is similar to reading about how torture is going on and seeing actual photos of it. To accurately assess what exactly went on, a military investigation write-up is quite different from the actual gunship video.

I agree that one may have quarrels with Wikileaks' methods. But please differentiate between their methods and the material they release.

From NYT 07/13/07: “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad." - To state that about the incident is misleading at best, and a cover-up at worst, don't you think?

How is my timeline mixed up? What does the vividness of the footage have to do with anything? What does an NYT article from July '09 have to do with a WaPo article from September '09?

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I'm certain there was a US coverup. The US military would cover up a paint spill. What I'm saying is that Wikileaks didn't break the coverup; it's been broken for more than 6 months.

Your comment encapsulates my issue with this Wikileaks story. People's justifiable outrage over what the video shows is clearly going to distort their judgement about the news value of the leak.

Your timeline was mixed up regarding Reuters seeing the video and their FOIA request.

The news value is that one is now able to objectively verify what happened in the ultimate vicinity of the incident. And that just doesn't add up with what the military told the press. A WaPo reporter writing about footage without being able to show it is something quite different than footage being available for everyone to see.

What I have found on HN is that people's judgement of the video gets distorted by their views about Wikileaks' methods. Their release methods have nothing to do with the validity of their material.

I think you and I agree about the Reuters / FOIA timeline.

The press reports I've read about the incident do not seem uncritical about the military's official story. So, I don't know what we're arguing about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com