12 September 2011

Endless Pursuit of Wikileaks Dirt Ship

During the period from the gunship video release by Wikileaks Cryptome has taken part in over 120 interviews focussed on Wikileaks by email, telephone, Skype, television, panels, meals, coffees, walks and face-up conversations with new friends and strangers. Except for a half dozen, all were seeking adverse information, gossip, gush, about Wikileaks and sites like it, demonic about Julian Assange, and avoidance of deeper appreciation of their purpose and offerings, implacably persistent, demanding, irascible, condescending, arrogant, mawkily flattering or aggressively rude. Quite a few returned several times to try a new tack, citing other sources, or new insights or to follow up that intriguing lead Cryptome wisely provided but was missed first time around. The latest in The Economist of September 10, 2011.

The interviewers were seasoned professionals as well as students, scholars, government officials, undercovers, fronts, commercial and governmental spies, hackers, whistleblowers and leakers. One claimed to be Julian Assange in New York City for a round of appearances (Colbert among them), with accent and familiar details, eager to meet but didn't show. Others claimed to work with famous media outlets, used emails and telephone numbers appearing genuine. Said they were associated with universities, journalism schools, communications security, privacy initiatives, public interest NGOs, hacking mags and years-long admirers or doubters of Cryptome. Many said they had never heard of Cryptome, who are you, what do you do, quickly, my deadline is near, we'll follow-up more later. Less than half used a sliver of what was offered, the others none. Most were erroneous and biased. Four were accurate. Three evidenced preparation. Two were fair. One offered a review before publication.

There are some others in the works wheedling with the same intent: to exploit the Wikileaks phenomenon as long as monetarily possible by offering a volunteer participant a distorted cherry-pick, a slit-throat footnote, a grotesque quote, a disdainful trivialization, a con-yokel exhibition.

It is not hard to spot the effect of this practice in coverage of Wikileaks once you have been assaulted by the exploiters. It is hard to find a coverage that does not contain duplicity to favor the coverer over Wikileaks and to devalue the source.

Do not believe nobody is paid for shipping dirt as shinola about Wikileaks, a lot money for that is available and being gobbled by dual-purpose friends of the Wikileaks initiative, a small sample named on its press page. One tweeted: "Ever since WikiLeaks has added my name to the list of people media should talk to about them, my inbox is, well, not what it used to be."