The spin-machine reaps what it sows: 70% of Americans believe the leaks do more harm than good.

from Jane Heller, who illustrates how I feel.

In a survey of 1,029 adults in the states, 59% of americans think those who publish the leaks should be prosecuted.  I found the results here. Things shake down predictably from there. I curtailed my automatic visceral-frustration reaction of "UGH, naturally" for a moment, and did some research. I wanted to know why.

A quick online survey of American news coverage and soundbites showed me a few trends: lots of talking-head American politicians talking ad nauseum about how the leaks "are putting American lives at risk", the "reckless dumping of information" endangering diplomacy and "the troops", and US politicians and the Attorney General looking for ways to prosecute Julian Assange.
If that picture was the only picture I was getting, I'd have these opinions too.

Unfortunately, most of the coverage people are basing their opinions on is BLATANTLY COUNTER-FACTUAL.


Let's recap, even though I'm making myself sick with how many times I've repeated this:

-the leaks have been heavily engineered to protect the people in them. Wikileaks has NEVER placed lives in danger in the four-year history they have been leaking documents, including those from the military.

-the leaks were redacted both by wikileaks staffers and the staff of five major international papers--thats edited-in-advance, pre-publication, to take out sensitive information--to protect the people in them. The US State Department was approached to help with this redaction process, and refused the offer to have a say in what went to print.  Less than half of one percent of the information Wikileaks possesses has been published. This is not what a "reckless publication" looks like.

-Julian Assange et al, in leaking the Cables, have not broken any laws in the United States. Not spying laws, not confidentiality clauses, not intellectual property statutes. The sources of the information may have obtained it illegally, but none of that has anything to do with the actions of Wikileaks. Journalistic organizations are not required to disclose their sources, nor are they required to only use information that has been obtained through legal means.

Which makes me even MORE inclined to believe the leaks to be "net-good". News aggregates, especially American ones, have clearly been disinclined to report facts for a long while, opting instead to cosy up to big government interests in order to... I dont know, ensure someone will actually talk to them at the Republican National Convention. The days of the Pentagon Papers are done, and major news networks don't seen to be missing them.

If I had to choose between so much spin that the news is basically useless, or huge volumes of leaked but true information, my choice is obvious.