|
|
|
|
|
|
by pedalpete
4255 days ago
|
|
|
Specifically that the redacted parts were to ensure the safety of the people involved was what I meant by the pieces that should be redacted. Hiding names and details which may harm people is responsible, but not publishing whole pieces of content, I think, makes WikiLeaks the 'editor' of information rather than 'liberator'. I don't think I said that political agenda's can't be lead by humanitarian agendas, if I did, that isn't what I meant, but not every humanitarian agenda is also a political agenda. I do believe that Assange has a humanitarian agenda, but that doesn't mean he doesn't also have a political agenda, and those two may be different things. |
|
|
"WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public."
That makes them an "'editor' of information". If you send them video from the surveillance cameras of your local Kwik-E-Mart, showing how the cats gather around the trash bin, then I see little need for them to publish that information. While a 'liberator' of information would do so as a matter of principle.
You appear to know little about the history of Wikileaks or about the leaked cables. Why do you think you know enough about Assange's political agenda, as distinct from his humanitarian agenda, to be confident about your statement?
I of course agree with you, but that's because I think everyone has a political agenda. You don't, so you must have other, specific reasons, which you haven't explained.