I want to start this diary off on a positive note. Listening to O'Reilly tonight. Old Finnicky Bill was chatting it up with the usual suspect Dennis Miller about why the latest wikileaks document dump was a total failure.
These two classic media clowns spent a good ten minutes asking themselves why wikileaks was such a failure. It seemed to go on forever and ever, and ever.... and ever.
After watching this segment of fox news I could have easily walked away from the TV thinking wikileaks and Julian Assange were a bunch of scam artists.
If I didn't know any better.
But I recommend you watch this gratuitous slice of real journalism about wikileaks from Democracy Now, hosted by a REAL JOURNALIST Amy Goodman.
http://www.democracynow.org/...
After watching that video can anybody say that the wikileak diplomatic-dump amounts to nothing, as O'Reilly suggests?
You've gotta be crazy.
And for what you've been waiting for... the New York Times. I've got some words for this organization, most of them are not worth printing so I'll refrain, but lets start off with this video from the BBC.
Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of the New York Times admits in public, in full view, that their stories are filtered through the lens of the u.s. goverment!! Watch the first two and half minutes of that video again and digest what he's saying.
And it doesn't stop there. Lets get it on with the Counter Punch critique,
http://counterpunch.com/...
A diplomatic cable from last February released by Wikileaks provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the U.S. suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or intends to develop such a capability.
In fact, the Russians challenged the very existence of the mystery missile the U.S. claims Iran acquired from North Korea.
But readers of the two leading U.S. newspapers never learned those key facts about the document.
The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the U.S. view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the U.S. side.
The Times, which had obtained the diplomatic cables not from Wikileaks but from The Guardian, according to a Washington Post story Monday, did not publish the text of the cable.
The Times story said the newspaper had made the decision not to publish "at the request of the Obama administration". That meant that its readers could not compare the highly- distorted account of the document in the Times
As a result, a key Wikileaks document which should have resulted in stories calling into question the thrust of the Obama administration's ballistic missile defense policy in Europe based on an alleged Iranian missile threat has instead produced a spate of stories buttressing anti-Iran hysteria.
Do you trust what the NY Times is saying about the Wikileaks diplomatic-dump? Do so at your own discretion because I will not and MY SUBSCRIPTION HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
They might think the government they're serving is friendly to their interests but thats not the role of press to decide for their readers.