Jay,

Some keen observations on the decline of the press as the so-called watchdog of the powers of government. But the emphasis of your analysis rests mostly on the failures of the press and its collusion with these powers.

Hasn't the credibility of the major press medias (NYT, le monde, guardian, Spiegel) been weakened by the deluge of blogs and alternative news outlets which are dedicated to undermining their credibility?

I read the NYT everyday without ever accessing its website or buying a hard copy. The blogs tell me what it's saying.

There is a robust and verbose cyber-industry dedicated to pointing out the journalistic shortcomings of the NYT and its sister publications. And these blogs have already conditioned me to be sceptical, suspicious, cynical, and even somewhat amused about the truth-value of our press.

"Wikileaks is the first stateless news organization..."

Incorrect. There's "Cryptome" for starters (founder John Young was also approached, initially, to partner with the Wikileaks founders but begged off when they revealed their wrong-headed funding goals).

Also, before trying to understand Wikileaks, one must try to understand "The Press". What does The Press do? Taking The Press' own word as to what it does and why it does it will get us nowhere. Using the word "decline" in re: The Press is to presume such an entity ever existed to do anything other than what it does. There's a remarkable naivete in taking it as a given that The Press is a god-given thing... a sort of platonic concept that exists because justice demands that it shall.

Understanding The Press, one understands the impulse (at least among some of the founders) behind Wikileaks. And understanding human nature, and money, and the nature of control (both of people and info) in a technocracy, one understands what Wikileaks has become: the slingshot in Goliath's hands.

Indeed the "Watchdog" press has become the "Lapdog" press. You're the first person I've heard use the fitting term "stateless" in describing Wikileaks.

Like you, I prefer to study the ongoing impact of the Wikileaks phenomenon. Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughtful opinions.

jay, i know you have the intellectual chops to read Bady's analysis of Assanges mission statement. i would be very interested in your exegesis.
zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/#
i personally think we should offer Assange a job....that is....if we relly are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The failure of the watchdog press concerning the Iraq War was also the argument that Keith Olbermann used to contradict Ted Koppel's validation of objective journalism.

"The beauty of Assanges system killer (if it works) is that the more unjust a regime is, the more vulnerable it is to this attack."

Sorry, but JA has already lost this one. Ask yourself: if WL was *ever* threatening "the established order", why was it given a platform on MSM, and why wasn't JA driven into hiding (as he is now) *before* you'd even heard of him? Hubris (thinking he could outgame a gator in the swamp) sucked JA into the trap. Wikileaks is serving The Masters now, and they're using WL as yet another arm of the propaganda machine. And how this story ultimately plays out will depend on the kind of message they want to send with JA's demise (because, surely, even JA knows, now, that his "insurance policy" is meaningless now that he has so many enemies that they'd have to wait in line to assassinate him).

I second what others wrote, i would love to see your comments on assange's essays (see links above). That is, the idea being not just to do what journalism should be doing -- exposing secrecy and potential corruption -- but to focus more on creating collateral effect irrespective of the contents topic and effecting the system that supports secrecy instead.

"nice conspiracy theory."

hope that's not pejorative; the irony would be too much (or too little, depending).

"The man in a suitcase could become the man in a casket if he puts a foot wrong. It is doubtful if any man on earth has more crosshairs on him. He even has an ‘insurance policy’ on his life; a devastating cache of embarrassing secrets that will be released should anything untoward happen to him. Spain’s formidable El Pais newspaper is one of the few prepared to publish and be damned."

But I'm curious as to why you, or anyone, would accept the notion that an "enemy" of Anglo-American hegemony (among other groups) would be allowed to pass freely in and out of the UK/Sweden, etc., to lecture and be given a voice/attention in The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Wired and the NYT, et al?

Explain your reasoning.

I'll just leave you with this (interesting stuff):

cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm

You have put into words what my brain was trying to construct. Thank you.

Thanks to all for your comments. I have indeed read the zunguzungu post and found it completely fascinating. jr.ly/5zun

Jay, your framing on this video post is spectacular. I really like how you layed this out... I've never read or heard anyone provide this kind of overarching framework for wikileaks before... I just have known them positioned as "heroic" by fans of free access to information and those who know they were lied to in artificial runup to Iraq War and beyond -- and as traitors by the lockstep FoxNews brigade, and perhaps even by the Eric Holders within the US Government.

So to hear and watch your very deliberating take on this -- and with Dewers inspiring you -- was very very helpful and illuminating... And I have to say --- very appreciated by me as being done in VIDEO and not simply "typed words". (thank god, finally!)

I will bullet-point what I heard here, to refresh my own memory:

(A) -- "I don't know what wikileaks IS exactly, yet... thus I cannot give you my opinion on it"

(B) But I am investigating it, which is my methodology, to try to understand first how things work, thus how wikileaks works,

(C) Wikileaks is one of the first, if not the first, journalistic organizations that was formed outside of the jurisdiction of a particular nation --- unlike the BBC and NYT who are both international in operations yet whose organizations were founded and based in their originating countries -- BBC in Great Britain, NYT in USA. Thus wikileaks is not under the jurisdiction of a nations laws.

(D) Wikileaks works based on a contract of sorts: an expectation that leakers with high value information can submit material to wikileaks website, and it is encrypted by the site, and even wikileaks organization doesn't know the source -- thus wikileaks is a conduit, not a direct recipient of information -- and, as part of this contract, the "leaker" does not simply get automatic publishing.. but rather wikileaks organization (people) then do due diligence to verify the veracity of the documents submitted, i.e., if they are alleged to be diplomatic cables, wikileaks does due diligence to determine if they are in fact diplomatic cables (**I was not clear HOW they do this); and if they are deemed legit, wikileaks publishes the documents...

(E) The reason a leaker of high-level information would even choose wikileaks as their agent for delivery to the public -- over the press -- (as was done by Deepthroat in Watergate) is because we in USA no longer have a watchdog press.

( ^^^^^^^ My 2 cents: Jay: Most of us on the progressive side of the spectrum have been very clear on this since at least 2000, that's ten years, and perhaps you could argue prior to that. So, how much longer do "we", as citizens in various roles, have to keep even articulating this point. It seems as elementary as "the sky is blue when the sun is out". It is beyond aggravating that this even has to be pointed out.

I get it that mainstream America has still not gotten the diplomatic cable alerting them to this simple fact, which should be as unambiguous as "we did not find nucular weapons in Iraq" -- and yet the latter above is still debated as well in American society due to the disinformation machinery of the right wing.

I just don't know how many more years I can take having to have anyone point out this fact that those of us watching this video know as blatantly as "am I reading a computer or phone screen right now, or am I throwing a baseball?"

Thank you for your tireless work and smart analysis.

For some one who is still processing - I think your early views make a lot of sense Jay - a web source and a context of failure in the traditional.

Hello Jay. Thank you for your very interesting consideration of this subject. Although I agree that the press, as an institution has allowed itself to be eroded over the last two decades, and have become an unattractive a destination for whistle-blowers, I also think that the US legal system has contributed to their demise as an institution who can curtail the abuse of power. The 2005 jailing of Judith Miller on contempt of court charges for her refusal to reveal her source in the CIA Plame affair made it clear that the press cannot protect its sources.
The press can't very well act as a watchdog when they are threatened with prosecution for acting as such. The bottom line is that your democracy has changed, Mr. Rosen. And the majority of your countrymen are willing to let it happen. When a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee can compel a private company to take down a website whose organization has not yet been charged or convicted of a crime, and no one in government but a loony Rep. Ron Paul objects... your democracy is dying. And the press is dying with it.

Jay,

Well done!

For some time now I’ve read you on Press Think – really enjoyable and educational. Then, the other day I noticed your first late-night video and watched with interest. And tonight, I watched your discussion of Rachel Maddow and Wikileaks. While your first video had a few problems, there was nothing that interfered with what you were saying. In terms of videos two and three, I noted that you resolved most of the production issues, but again, what you had to say was vastly more interesting than the video’s production values.

Of course, everyone sees things through their own eyes, so some folks may take issue with what I’m about to say, but don’t worry too much about the esthetics -- it’s your ideas, your perspective that’s the draw. Also, as I’m sure you know, the first time you do something is always harder than the next.

I’m telling you this because I like what you’ve done so far and hope you’ll continue to post. Have you ever followed what I call a “thinking writer” – someone who’s not just putting words on the page but actually has something worth reading – and said to yourself, “I’d really like to sit down and talk with this person for 10 or 15 minutes” to pick their brain on issues you struggle to fully understand? That of course is not practical, but I’m amazed at how close your videos come to doing this for me.

Perhaps it’s your informal style, your experience as a professor or your brand of drink, but for me your videos feel like an “after hours” conversation with a knowledgeable person whose special job makes them someone you can learn a lot from. Throughout my career, I’ve been very fortunate to work for people who were also natural mentors. And I’ve learned a great deal from these folks because they were willing to take the time to explain their point-of-view and share their insights.

Early on, I had a boss that always used to work an hour or two after regular hours to allow the going home traffic to calm down before he left. It was also a great time to work because most everyone had gone home and the place was quiet. It didn’t take me long to discover that this after hours’ time was the best time to pitch ideas and get his insights on issues of the day. On Fridays or after a particularly crazy day, he’d open his office bar and pour us both a scotch. We’d drink, he’d talk and I’d learn. I will be forever grateful for those opportunities and the positive influence they had on my work.

Video offers additional information that’s hard to come by in the written word. Almost everyone can tell when someone is reading from a script. There is of course nothing wrong with reading from a script, but as a writer myself I know that I work to edit and hone my words to provide readers with a clear and unambiguous message. This involves structure, measure, revision, planning and strategy. These are all good things for certain forms of communication. However, a candid, spontaneous, extemporaneous discussion of vexing, real-world issues, rich with insight and nuance they are not. I might even be just repeating the same ideas presented to the last half dozen groups, drawn from thoughts I had 10 years ago. In video, however, all these things are there on the screen for viewers to see if they’re paying attention. It’s very hard to fake it, show passion and sincerity where there is none or convince viewers that something has genuine value when it doesn’t. It all comes through in high definition on video unless you put a sack over your head and even that says something.

Okay, I’m off my soap box. Thanks for your insights -- I’ll be watching.

Frank

cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-rip.htm

"Wikileaks Rest in Peace

"The original Wikileaks initiative is dead, replaced by a bloated apparatus promising 260,000 cables at slower than a snail's pace. At the rate of 20 cables a day it will take 13,000 days to finish -- some 35 years.

"The original merits of Wikileaks have been lost in its transformation into a publicity and fund-raising vehicle for Julian Assange as indicated in the redesign website which billboards him.

"Its once invaluable, steady stream of documents, packaged in its own, no-frills format, is now a tiny dribble of documents apparently regulated by a compact with a few main stream media which amplify the material well beyond its significance. Days go by when nothing new is offered except outpouring of manufactured news about Assange and a slew of trivial news and bombastic commentaries for and against the initiative.

"Will Wikileaks once again deliver its original promise or stay imprisoned in bombshells so beloved by the main stream media?

What happened to the back-log of submissions to Wikileaks? Thousands a week coming in, Assange claimed, for which he said there is no staff to process. What staff is needed to process a 3-20 cables a day?"