Bill Keller "was one of the leading liberal supporters of the 2003 invasion of Iraq"... and a Douche.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by vaporlock.

if this is true, then TNYT can go fuck itself. No wonder print media is dying.

There are three books on the market that can shed some light on what happened behind the curtains between Assange/WikiLeaks and Guardian/NYT/Spiegel primarily on the other side.


a) "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" (Guardian)
b) "Open Secrets: Wikileaks, War and American Diplomacy" (New York Times)
c) "Staatsfeind WikiLeaks"/"WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" (Der Spiegel)

Excerpts of each one have been made available at the corresponding pages. Whether the truth can be found within one of these books, I highly doubt it. But at least "WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" was an interesting read.

The NYT may have reasons to distance itself, but competition is not one of them. Wikileaks is raw (or nearly raw) data, and the typical reader is never going to go there instead of the NYT to get their news.

So, Does RT do a single story on Russia? They are called Russian Times, but I have never seen them do any story on their own country. It all seems to be crap about the U.S.. Did they not just have a bombing in an airport there? Hows that Chechnya war going? How has Pooty been doing? Hows his little puppet Dmitry Medvedev working out? Have they Let the Chechnya Group that planned the bombing out yet so they can be captured or killed later with "embedded news people following along."?

"Russian Times, we don't know what the hell is going on in our own country, but we know a bunch of wrong things going on in the U.S."

How on earth can the New York Times call WikiLeaks a source? Shouldn't they know better than anyone what that term means? It's just laughable that they would pretend not to understand the distinction between sources, journalists and publishers. And all too obviously a nod to the Justice Department, declaring publicly that the NYT supports prosecution of Julian Assange.

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

Don't confuse the message with the messenger.

Julian Ass-ange is a despicable human being. Do not worship the false idol.

So yes, it is perfectly fine to despise and criticize this man. So don't think for one second that criticizing this fucktard as being against the release of the leaked documents. If he didn't do it someone else would have.

You are treating him as if he is "God's gift to freedom" is stupid.

If NY Times has any doubts about the Assange's motives they could have and should have expressed this early rather than after they have benefited from Wikileak's partnership for so long. No one forced them to partner with Wikileaks and they could have passed the baton on to someone else.

Going on about what Assange's "true" and secret motives are is so conspiratorial and pointless. Why waste your time wondering what he's really thinking (world domination or ruins??) or whether he's just a boy who happened to climb a tree that rained shit (this is how you describe information released). You could have doubts like this about anyone - it's the people that hide it the best that would scare me the most. You are never going to know until some solid evidence is provided by ... a whistleblower.

Let's focus on what can be seen and proven to have happened. Wikileaks had the guts to accept classified information and to bring it to the public. This has opened the eyes of many people and opened up a lot of debate. The clip of the innocent iraqis and journalists killed was horrifying but needed to be seen. I will thank Wikileaks even for just this one little clip.

If and when I see Wikileaks/Assange do something against my beliefs then I will stop supporting them.

To me, Wikileaks have allowed journalists to kick down thousands of strands of ropes from the top of the tree to where the rest of us on the ground can take hold and, if we wished to, climb a little higher so that we can begin to see exactly why or how it all happened as individuals and make our own minds up.

'Russia Today' is funny... taking Fox News' ideas and further confounding what is a report and what is an editorial/opinion piece.

I don't understand why there have to be perfect villains and perfect heroes. Assange is flawed and his own agenda, the New York Times is flawed and has its own agenda.

I suggest going back and listening to this "news report" again with a critical ear. It is a smear piece, with loaded language, and is in no way a piece of journalism. It has its own personal agenda to stir up feelings rather than report on facts.

I am deeply sick of the whole trumped up drama.

edit: By the way, the title of this vid is more trumped up drama. I avoided watching it for a long time, but finally caved in to Top 15 peer pressure. But I'm not down voting. I'm just annoyed.