Wagging the Wikileaks Tales

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
If Wikileaks Were a Movie
Would it Be 'Wag the Dog'?
by Gianluca D'Agostino Ph.D.
Is Wikileaks just the usual American propaganda or a new form of Communication?

Are world's media just a flock of sheep who love being sodomized by America's propaganda? Or is Wikileaks bringing world politics to a new communication level?

Beyond all these questions what's really amazing is the fact that every newspaper in the world today is publishing Wikileaks documents treating them as the commandment tablets brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai.
As a general rule, if you are a professional journalist, before printing something out you always should pose yourself a question: "Is this damn Wikileaks a credible source?"
Indeed the real matter here about all this story of Wikileaks is all about credibility.
In other words, the question is: Who gave Wikileaks the title of "credible source?"
[For complete article features, please see source at Atlantic Free Press here.]
Let's put the case that an hypothetical journalist today would question his boss on Wikileaks credibility. This could be a hypothetical newsroom dialogue:

Journalist: "who gave Wikileaks the title of "credible source?"

Boss: "What? wake up dude! That's Wikileaks! the most credible source on the planet!"

Journalist:"Who told you that?"

Boss: "Are you blind? Don't you see everybody is printing Wikileaks' documents?"

Journalist: "Well, OK but who told everybody Wikileaks is a credible source?"

Boss: "The Pentagon and the US government and Hillary Clinton and CNN and these are all credible sources dude! don't you think? Then there's that Manning guy, down in Kuwait,he's in the military so he's definitely credible"

Journalist: "Yes but nobody has ever seen him right?"

Boss: "...are you saying you don't trust the department of defense? Now go back to work and never pose such stupid questions again!"

Journalist:"Alright boss I won't ask it ever again"

So Wikileaks has an infinite credibility by default, without being credited by history, experience, or any former result, other than releasing thousands of pseudo-classified documents. Wikileaks credibility comes just from the fact that major American institutions like Pentagon and State Department are taking it as gospel....I mean basically it´s their creature, because Wikileaks exists thanks to some pentagon documents they received from a still undisclosed source.

Yes because the "source" who apparently stole and then leaked all these documents to Wikileaks is Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, that in practice is just a name on a piece of sheet as nobody has ever seen him and obviously he´s not available for comments as at the moment he´s confined to a military base in Kuwait.

If these facts weren´t real, probably it would have been the perfect plot for a Robert Ludlum´s novel, or better if it were a movie was definitely Wag the dog, as this Private sounds very much like Sergeant William "Old Shoe" Schumann. Actually Private Manning could resemble also to Cpl. Joe Bauers, a.k.a. "Not Sure", the protagonist of the movie "Idiocracy" by Mike Judge.

So Wikileaks releases hundreds of thousands of documents and immediately takes the spotlight with top credibility. So strange.

Steven Greer, the head of Disclosure Project had been working on the disclosure project for more than 15 years, he gathered more than 800 alive witnesses among Intelligence, military, politics and the scientific community and he was able to gather them all at the Washington Press club and make them testify under oath about extraterrestrial existence from their direct work experience. These witnesses basically were government employees who had direct contact with ET classified material because of their job.

Despite the hot topic, the credibility of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence, the event received not a single headline in the news, just some feature story that probably lasted less than 5 minutes in a news show for just one day. Although according to Dr. Greer there is more evidence on the extraterrestrial subject than there was for Monicagate....

While these Wikileaks people came out of the blue with all this toilet papers and are able to catch the limelight and stay on forever...How is that? There's certainly something fishy here.... In the media, we all know how it works: something goes on and something doesn't. it's all about editorial choices. Somebody picks up Wikileaks as today's news story and there we go.

In the past recent history there´s another event very similar to this Wikileaks story, it´s the story of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers. Same historical background, with America involved in a war in Vietnam and this Ellsberg dude who disclose these "pentagon papers" to the public.

Just history repeating? The story details are so similar: Ellsberg was a military analyst and a former marine, like this Manning dude, he´s a military analyst....at this point we should analyse every single public revelation involving the military in recent history.

For example we are used to think the Watergate scandal was discovered by those two journalists at the Washington Post: Bernstein and Woodward. But Woodward was a former Naval Intelligence officer, he worked at the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence).

While in the Navy Bob Woodward was the briefing officer for Admiral Moorer, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had authorized his subordinates to spy on the White House´s National Security Counsel.....Woodward during the Watergate investigation was fed by the FBI through deep throat, aka FBI Associate Director Mark Felt. Woodward's supervisor was Ben Bradlee, a former CIA propaganda officer. During his service Bradlee joined the staff of the Office of U.S. Information and Educational Exchange (USIE), the embassy's propaganda unit. USIE produced films, magazines, research, speeches, and news items for use by the CIA throughout Europe. USIE (later known as USIA) also controlled the Voice of America, a means of disseminating pro-American "cultural information" worldwide....Do I have to go on?

In practice the Watergate was a news show run by the United States Intelligence community? However the Watergate wasn't a scandal it was just a smooth way to get rid of Richard Nixon.

Let's make an hypothesis: the same thing is happening now with this Wikileaks files. Same method it just with different actors, but the story is just the same: Wikileaks does not exist at all. It's just a false flag trick to deliver a message from an unofficial source, in order to have a story that sounds credible and objective because it comes from a third part.

In the end, if this would be the case, it would mean America a nation run by Intelligence on a need-to-know basis? If yes this might be a cold war heritage, but it stays on because of America´s role in the world balance. That´s why thinking of the possibility that a massive amount of leaks may occur, it's not just out of question, it´s just impossible.

Meanwhile those Wikileaks folks think they are the ones who run the show...pathetic.

The Wikileaks documents reveal what the US government think of the world but the government cannot say it officially. Why they can't say it? Simply because America's opinion is not shared by the rest of the world. In practice it's a solo opinion. The problem is that America's interests are only America's interests, that's why its opinion cannot be popular and shared by the rest of the world. America holds the unique position of world's controller, how can its opinion be shared by somebody outside of its role?

So basically Wikileaks serves as America's opinion outsourcer to the rest of the world. Period. That's what Wikileaks was made for. Basically this is a heritage of the Kissinger doctrine applied to today's media battlefield. The Kissinger doctrine is basically linking America´s interests to the world´s interests. In other words: "our problems are the world´s problems".

We used the Kissinger doctrine for the Vietnam war, we adopted it in the Gulf war and we apply it in the war on terror. In practice the Kissinger doctrine can be summarized with one sentence: "the linking of the whole world for self interests"

Usually a world leader does not express its opinion through a press release, you need somebody (Wikileaks) who "steal" the information and then release it.

The thing is Wikileaks is not aware of it, they think they are there to save the world by leaking strategic documents. How can somebody be so naive?

If you still ignore it....America let you know only what they want you to know....and if Mr. Julian Assange thinks any different he's just a poor minus habens.

There's nothing wrong in this, it's actually a good way to let the world know what the boss (America) thinks of its co-workers (Allies) and competitors (enemies) and if you are the world's cop that's absolutely understandable. The only thing I complain about is the way you run the show, in my opinion this Wikileaks thing is really badly organized and the show is all you've got, that's why you have to set it up right and in my opinion this Wikileaks show wasn't.

But let's see the real deal: from the Wikileaks documents released these days we have been informed that we cannot trust Pakistan, we should not trust the Saudis, China, Russia, or North Korea. (Obviously the "we" is from the United States of America's POV.)

But we all have to trust the United States of America. Is this a fair judgment a boss should express? A perfect show should have been better organized and mostly perfectly balanced, in order to be absolutely credible. On the contrary, according to Glenn Beck "the documents are helping to foster anarchy and chaos around the globe" by disclosing personal profiles and details of world leaders redacted by US diplomats. In practice these documents are just gossips on world leaders like Berlusconi, Putin, Sarkozy and their little circus of big con artists. etc.

At this point we obviously take for granted that the Pentagon and the State Department gave those documents on purpose to those Wikileaks folks as if this weren't the case Julian Assange was already buried under the 20 yard at the Giant Stadium, Wikileaks office were blown up and no media would have reported a single "leak".

Although they're apparently doing their best to fight against Wikileaks: Senator Joe Lieberman even proposed a law against those who would publish intelligence reports, totally ignoring (or forgetting?) there's already a law providing such evenience...Then there's the search warrant in 188 countries...wow..(wasn't the same proclamation made also for Osama Bin Laden?) But Assange is still at large,(isn't he?) he's actually releasing interviews to major newspapers without apparently being worried that a black op squad could jump upon him while sipping his martini....Then they say they're shutting down the Wikileaks website, but strangely it's still up there...they just changed its IP address (probably to have more space for commercials) just the usual fluffy smoke...that makes the phenomenon always more famous and well kept under the spotlight. Indeed U.S. officials at the Pentagon and State Department denied Friday December 3, knowing of any efforts to take down the WikiLeaks website or asking companies to do so.

The only question that's still on is just one: why? These profiles have been made by US diplomats, so basically Wikileaks is just a strategy of foreign policy. The question is: Was this made just to weaken the position of our allies and enemies? Because this could be the ultimate goal...

Indeed I believe if you let somebody know what you think of him/her, by publicly exposing what his weakness is, he might try to change his behavior for good, in order to improve his image to the world. Or not?

Has the State Department just become a sort of global political shrink? Although this could be a revolutionary working system to improve US foreign policy and relations....Certainly we know that this show is run by the State Department because it's not the US foreign policy under trial here even if some documents concerned human rights violations made by the US.

Indeed we already knew about the Guantanamo tortures and human rights violations both in Iraq and Afghanistan...that was just a bone to the dogs, so it's not the US policy under scrutiny here, but the rest of the world's ethics and trustiness.

Basically those diplomatic cables all together it makes a world's portrait as seen by the State Department. In terms of journalism it could be considered as a State Department Op.Ed.

Although we still have a question: cui prodest? That means who is going to take advantage of it? Well, usually diplomats do not shout their personal opinions to their colleagues face, as it would kill the concept of diplomacy itself. Even if you do it through the triangular diplomacy of Wikileaks.

Although maybe this could be a way to bring diplomatic communication to a new level: the one of true sincerity as a new system of communication among world leaders. If this is the case, we have a new international relations era waiting ahead of us because America would be leading the world into a new level of communication by teaching self-awareness to every single citizen on this planet.

This would be like to be run by enlightened leaders, I would say like almost extra-terrestrials......Indeed in my opinion there's nothing better than the truth to bring justice, peace and prosperity to the world.

Let's hope this is the real deal and Wikileaks' ultimate goal.
Gianluca D'Agostino worked for major news organizations like CNN and Associated Press. He holds a Ph.D in Theory of Information and Communication. His research focus is on the relationship between narratives and marketing in film and television. He was a researcher at Stanford and Visiting Scholar at the University of California Berkeley.  

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn