I know I may be flamed for this but I have to say, knowingly editing things 'for maximum possible political impact' is no different than fox or any other media outlet editing content for the purpose of conveying their specific message. I'm very discouraged by this. Even very slight editing can change perception tremendously. Saying that they publish the unedited version on their site is akin to publishing a retraction or correction in a newspaper etc. That's not what gets exposure, and it's not designed to. The edited footage is purposefully crafted to obtain maximum exposure. I think they started off with an incredibly brave and ambitious project but are now compromising their integrity for money. I suppose I'm just repeating what Colbert said ..

It's just sad that now I have to view everything I see at wikileaks with the same sort of skepticism as I would fox news.

Wikileaks: Just publish the raw documents. That's what people respected you for.

Haven't you heard?

People don't give a shit about un-edited material.

They want to see the raw bloody impact!

The boom in your face action!

The above is sarcasm.

There are two sides to that sword, would this video have gotten as much attention had it not been edited and called collateral murder? That's not begging the question, that is a serious question and a point of view that I hold.

I think the media calls it Shock Value.

>> ^burdturgler:
..

did you actually watch the video?
all they did was point out the facts and cut out stuff unnecessary to tell the story
they identified the people in the video and narrated the events with text
only thing not straight is the title; collateral murder
why? people get bored when they see a 40 minute video with a vague description

to keep with the theme.. here's the unedited interview;
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview

Unless people have an objection, I'm gonna swap out the embed for the unedited version. I looked for it when I went to sift this, but couldn't find it.

@NetRunner
Nothing in that other video changes the fact that they are editing the documents that they are "leaking" and that is the only thing I object to.

@shole (no pun intended)
Yes, I watched the video. Not the point. Having Wikileaks decide what is the "facts" and what is relevant or "unnecessary" is just as bad as any other media group doing it. The fact that they admit doing it for "political impact" does not help. When someone approaches a video (or any other document) with the mindset of editing it for a specific purpose, then they have made every frame, every image, every sound and every word spoken in their finished product suspect. It doesn't matter how noble their cause. This is the exact sort of thing that media matters and other organizations cover daily. The willful manipulation of reality.

Wikileaks was regarded as a neutral party that anyone from any governmental or political affiliation could release confidential or secret data to without fear. Now they have revealed themselves as an organization that will (in my mind, for money) take any leaked material and purposefully edit it to create the "maximum possible political impact" the "leaker" intended.

@burdturgler, I basically agree with you, but let me play devil's advocate.

If they had just released the video without editorial framing, would it have gotten the kind of attention it has?

Would it have had the same impact on people who watched it?

Before, people scarcely were aware wikileaks existed. How about now?

Was their credibility really damaged? Did the edit conceal relevant information, or lead people to a mistaken conclusion?

They did also release the raw footage, so you can compare as you like, and see if they misrepresented the sequence of events.

The more I turn this over in my head, I'm not so sure they've really made the wrong decision here. They're going to have to be doubly cautious from here on out if they want to maintain credibility, but they've got a long way to fall before they're on Fox's level.

Mostly I think it's a dangerous thing for them to do personally. A fastidiously apolitical organization dedicated to self-concealment and exposure of confidential information has a layer of political protection from violent retribution from the governments and corporations they offend. Becoming a blatantly political organization with the same modus operandi opens you up to a lot more danger, especially if you do something the public doesn't appreciate.

It's hard to argue with you when you agree with me, but OK I'll try
You put so many questions and the quoting system is very difficult now so I will just run off the list.

-No, it wouldn't have got the same attention.
-No, it wouldn't have had the same impact.
-Yes, more people know about wikileaks now.

If the goal is popularity and impact, great! Again, I refer them to fox news for further lessons.

-Their credibility was only damaged with people who think editing for political impact is a disservice to the truth.

-Whether or not the edit concealed anything relevant or was misleading is for the viewer to decide. The problem is that the edited version is what is spread all over the net and that is what people are viewing everywhere. This was their goal. Yet how many of them are even aware of the unedited footage? WikiLeaks admits that only 10% of people have seen the unedited footage. The fact that they state they edited it for a political agenda tells me their goal is not to release the truth. I have no idea if even the unedited footage they have "released" is unedited.

They really have damaged their credibility in my mind with this one statement:

"we will edit any material you share with us to give you the maximum possible political impact for your agenda"

(I edited that statement of theirs, but it's basically true. Close enough. And that's what counts eh?)

bottom line .. for me anyway, I will still check them out and be glad to see what they have "leaked", but I will not take documents I see there at face value unless they are confirmed in some other way.

I don't really like this guy a whole lot - his philosophy seems half-baked.

Maybe I just expected him to be more laconic and convincing under Colbert's scrutiny.

I like wikileaks tho

@burdturgler, fair enough. I'm not so sure he really implied that the political "enhancements" were exactly for sale though.

Generally speaking, it's a whistleblower site -- people are turning over confidential information that they believe is evidence that some sort of breach of legal or ethical standards had taken place.

For example, the climategate e-mails in raw form were too numerous and unfocused for an average person to glean anything meaningful from them at all, unless they spent hours or days reading them all.

Much better to edit them down to the juiciest, most damning bits, and then work through whether the worst of the worst really proved anything.

Other than the obviously biased title "Collateral Murder", a lot of what the editing did here was fill in supplemental information that you might not have been able to glean from watching the raw camera footage.

I'm still not sure it really proves criminal action, either by US military code or international law, but it sure does bring home that war is hell.

As for getting more attention, it kinda defeats the purpose of publicizing things like this, and the risk their informers are taking to provide it, if everyone ignores it.

I'm not sure they've made the right choice by going down this path, but I don't necessarily think they've made the wrong one, either.

While I agree with both of you that editing politically sensitive documents is sketchy...

1) They did also release the unedited version.

2) I will trust them as long as they continue to supply unedited versions of their edited documents.

3) If one day they edit something so as to hide relevant information, then they will lose my trust. Their editing of the collateral murder video is innocent, no?

4) If they are truly trying to spread truth, then better that they provide the edited versions, as opposed to them releasing tedious documents that will be unscrupulously edited by liars and agents of misinformation.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, April 13th, 2010 1:30pm PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.