Glenn Greenwald on Wikileaks and the parlous state of the media

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2139

[Bravus]

Greenwald's point, though, is that the press/media is not, and should not be, an arm of government. Rather, if a democracy is to function, the press has an important role in holding the government to account. I'm realistic enough to know that government folks are only human, but when they spend our money and kill in our name we have the right to scrutinise their actions. Like it or not Wikileaks is making that possible in an unprecedented way.

[Bravus]

I think the 'what should happen in a democracy' argument is a pragmatic one, rather than a moral one. That is, I agree that there's no 'one true democratic way' that determines what should happen. But a democracy is a government by the people - in both our countries through representatives rather than directly. If the people are completely kept in the dark about the actions of government, they are unable to make informed decisions: that's just a pragmatic point. In that sense, secrecy is antidemocratic. I do accept that some, very limited, secrecy is necessary to the operation of government. The case has been made, largely through dishonest fear-mongering, for more and more secrecy over the past decade in particular but the past 2-3 decades at least. Our democracies are out of balance - and the media are complicit.

[phkrause]

The article makes some very good points. But if we are supprised at the shinanigans of this country or any other country than we've been hiding our heads in the sand.

[Bravus]

The article makes some very good points. But if we are supprised at the shinanigans of this country or any other country than we've been hiding our heads in the sand.

I agree, but I think we need to avoid 'outrage fatigue', to avoid just shrugging our shoulders and saying 'meh, we know it happens'. The people who are killed as a result of government screwups and false-pretence wars are real human beings, and we need to hold governments to account for them.

[Bravus]

But, but wait: I'm meant to be a filthy librul who loves big government in all its forms and never met a gubmint program I didn't like?! How can *I* be in favour of holding government's feet to the fire? Does not compute! :D

[phkrause]

But, but wait: I'm meant to be a filthy librul who loves big government in all its forms and never met a gubmint program I didn't like?! How can *I* be in favour of holding government's feet to the fire? Does not compute!

LOL, I agree, I also think government should be held accountable. All I was saying is that most already know all the things that are coming out. And yes most are complaining, as Don Henley would say, our "dirty laundry" is showing. :)

[Gary K]

First of all, we, here in the US, live in a republic, not a democracy. There is a very significant difference between the two, and our founding fathers chose to form a republic for very specific, and very good, reasons.

Second, Assange has publicly stated his reasons for publishing the documents he's published. His stated goal is anarchy, not transparency of government. Once anarchy is created what is the only form of government that can stop it? Authoritarianism. This the ultimate goal of marxists and socialists and Assange belongs to one of those groups.