- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The issue with this Catz is I believe the term "publication" and how broad you want to make it.
If an online site is considered a publication, then based on what you said "Debate Politics" is part of "The Press". Its something that's put forward that acts as a vehicle for the dissimination of opinion and information.
Does that make us all journalists?
I think we're so busy being mad at Wiki that we fail to see the bigger picture. Our government completely FAILED. Who is being taken to task for that truth? The usual answer....nobody.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner here. Sloppy information protocols lead to this leak in the first place. If we'd covered our asses, as a country, our butt wouldn't be flapping in the breeze right now.
It's okay to be angry. It ISN'T okay to use that anger as an excuse for undermining the fundamental principles of liberty in our society.
We can't ever think about these issues in the short term, y'all. We have to think about what the longterm ramifications would be. And the press in the U.S. has already been significantly stifled in its capacity as watchdog on the government, through many methods.
Think about the reaction to Rolling Stone magazine when they did the story on Stanley McChrystal. That was the press functioning---as it should. But there was outrage from many quarters because the military has gotten used to a friendly, complacent media that sucks up in exchange for access.
THAT IS NOT HOW THE PRESS SHOULD FUNCTION.
If our press were working as it should be in this country, Wikileaks would not have a function in exposing our secrets. But they aren't.
Who on this thread can even remotely suggest that Bush/Obama were/are held accountable by the press? Hell no, they aren't.
Even when, for example, MSNBC's evening crew went after Bush for accountability, it was riddled with half-truths and spin; when FNC goes after Obama, it's lies and innuendo. My point being that even when they are seeming to hold one accountable, they do it poorly. The best I've seen is the evening MSNBC crew when they go after Obama, then it seems it's mostly truth.
I like Jon, he's not a news repeater like all the others who claim to be reporters.I've seen John Stewart do the best job of any media outlet at actually holding politicians, and other media outlets, accountable.
AND HE IS A DAMN COMEDIAN.
That should tell us that our press is broken.
Wait! We are supposed to consider some radical socialist from another country for protection under out constitutional guarantees. I think not. I bet there is no-one associated with Weaki anything with any journalistic training, character or ethics. I don't know this and don't really care. They are not a U.S. entity and therefore if they do what they are doing it is simply espionage. Also, these documents are the property of our government. They are not public domain. Some are classified, all are sensitive. I've been responsible for classified material. There are criminal penalties for what they have done whether against a government or a corporation. We should go after Assange and most of his cohorts on that basis. Notwithstanding that, they should be designated as terrorists and dealt with under that basis...no fly, no anything.
I think you are confused...Wikileaks part of the press? Pfft!!!!! They're an enemy of the United States and must be destroyed, just like any other petty terrorist.
I think you are confused...
I may not condone the actions of Wikileaks, but I fail to see how they could be considered a terrorist organization...
Unless you consider releasing classified documents obtained from an inside source terrorism?
What proof of this do you have? Unless you are considering your second statement proof?They are supporting the terrorists.
What proof of this do you have?The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
They are supporting the terrorists.
The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
First I have heard of that, and I am a news junky....got links?
They are supporting the terrorists.
The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
Please expand on your reasoning.
No. I thought the argument would be whether or not they deserve whistleblower status (which I don't think they, or those connected should be allowed those protections).
I don't think so. It's purpose is far too specific and targeted.
Basically, it's an online clearinghouse for disseminating stolen/classified US government communications.
I don't think so. It's purpose is far too specific and targeted.
Basically, it's an online clearinghouse for disseminating stolen/classified US government communications.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?