Manning describes ‘two worlds’ – one in the US and one she witnessed in Iraq – in New York Times interview days after her release from military prison
Thanks to camera phones and social media, the deadly consequences of U.S. military operations are indeed being recorded, shared, and watched around the world on an unprecedented scale. But while civilian deaths are regularly reported in local media outlets in the Middle East, they are seldom reported in detail by international media.
Egypt has blocked access to at least 21 news sites critical of the government, notably the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera, Huffington Post’s Arabic-language site HuffPost Arabi and the independent website Mada Masr.
Chelsea Manning, the army private who released a vast trove of US state secrets and was punished by the US military for months in penal conditions denounced by the UN as torture, has been released from a military prison in Kansas after serving seven years of a 35-year sentence.
“Muslims are like cockroaches. An infestation that needs to be eradicated. Immediately. Permanently”, reads the tweet by one of thousands of anonymous far-right Twitter accounts that spread hate against ethnic and religious minorities each day.
Crowdfunded online publication from Jimmy Wales will pair paid journalists with army of volunteer contributors
Negative emotions and anxiety exist for a reason. The rancid sense of rising terror that we often feel in response to the current news cycle is a crucial early-warning system that things are indeed not right. Rather than trying to ignore and appease those feelings of anxiety by disengaging, we should be listening to what they are telling us. We need to be more vigilant, not less.
Todo llega a su fin. Algunas cosas antes de lo esperado, algunas otras más tarde. A veces el fin de las cosas llega de una forma invisible, cuando deja de ocupar espacio en nuestras mentes, en nuestro tiempo, porque nuestras vidas se han movido vertiginosamente en direcciones que hasta hace poco, no habríamos si quiera imaginado. Es este, en mi opinión, el caso de Manzana Mecánica.
The debate about “fake news” and the “post-truth” society we now supposedly inhabit has become the epistemological version of a feeding frenzy: so much heat, so little light. Two things about it are particularly infuriating. The first is the implicit assumption that “truth” is somehow a straightforward thing and our problem is that we just can’t be bothered any more to find it. The second is the failure to appreciate that the profitability, if not the entire business model, of both Google and Facebook depends critically on them not taking responsibility for what passes through their servers. So hoping that these companies will somehow fix the problem is like persuading turkeys to look forward to Christmas.
The rise of the internet may have created our current predicament, but the people who populate the internet can help us get out of it. Next time you go back and forth with someone over a controversial issue online, stick to facts with good sources, and engage in open dialogue. Most importantly, be nice. You may end up being a small part of the process whereby information chaos becomes knowledge.
WikiLeaks tweeted last week that Assange would agree to US extradition if Obama granted Manning clemency. Asked during a web broadcast on Thursday if he would now leave the embassy, Assange said: “I stand by everything I said, including the offer to go to the United States if Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted.”
At the time of her revelations, she was the most important whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg. Upon hearing the news today, Ellsberg said this: “Once in a while, someone does what they ought to do. Some go to prison for it, for seven years; some accept exile for life. But sometimes even a president does it. And today, it was Obama.”
The White House insisted on Tuesday that Assange’s offer to submit to extradition if Obama “grants Manning clemency” did not influence the president’s action.
Like most people, I’ve long known that factual falsehoods are routinely published in major media outlets. But as I’ve pointed out before, nothing makes you internalize just how often it really happens, how completely their editorial standards so often fail, like being personally involved in a story that receives substantial media coverage. I cannot count how many times I’ve read or heard claims from major media outlets about the Snowden story that I knew, from first-hand knowledge, were a total fabrication.We have a perfect example of how this happens from the New York Times today, in a book review by Nicholas Lemann, the Pulitzer-Moore professor of journalism at Columbia University as well as a long-time staff writer for The New Yorker.
The most ironic aspect of all this is that it is mainstream journalists — the very people who have become obsessed with the crusade against Fake News — who play the key role in enabling and fueling this dissemination of false stories. They do so not only by uncritically spreading them, but also by taking little or no steps to notify the public of their falsity.
Those interested in a sober and rational discussion of the Russia hacking issue should read the following:(1) Three posts by cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr: first, on the difficulty of proving attribution for any hacks; second, on the irrational claims on which the “Russia hacked the DNC” case is predicated; and third, on the woefully inadequate, evidence-free report issued by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI this week to justify sanctions against Russia.(2) Yesterday’s Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi, who lived and worked for more than a decade in Russia, titled: “Something About This Russia Story Stinks.”(3) An Atlantic article by David A. Graham on the politics and strategies of the sanctions imposed this week on Russia by Obama; I disagree with several of his claims, but the article is a rarity: a calm, sober, rational assessment of this debate.
one’s views of Assange are completely irrelevant to this article, which is not about Assange. This article, instead, is about a report published this week by The Guardian that recklessly attributed to Assange comments that he did not make. This article is about how those false claims — fabrications, really — were spread all over the internet by journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news. The purpose of this article is to underscore, yet again, that those who most flamboyantly denounce Fake News, and want Facebook and other tech giants to suppress content in the name of combating it, are often the most aggressive and self-serving perpetrators of it.
The phrase “Fake News” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
WikiLeaks, definida por su fundador, Julian Assange como “una gran biblioteca de la rebelión”, lleva diez años publicando más información secreta que todos los demás medios de prensa combinados. Las revelaciones informaron al público sobre tratados secretos, vigilancia masiva, ataques contra civiles, torturas y asesinatos cometido por los gobiernos de EE.UU. y otros países.
The study found that over the last three months of the election campaign, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyper-partisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook, whereas the 20 best-performing election stories from 19 major news websites generated a total of 7,367,000 shares, reactions and comments. In other words, if you run a social networking site, fake news is good for business, even if it’s bad for democracy.
Y pese a que la prensa mayoritaria lo negaba en forma maniaca, los correos filtrados por Wikileaks eran viralizados por las redes sociales, dando cuenta de una serie de situaciones como las siguientes: cerca de la mitad de las personas que lograron tener acceso a Hillary Clinton mientras era Secretaria de Estado, habían hecho, en los días previos, importantes donaciones a la Fundación Clinton (pay to play); su jefe de campaña era al mismo tiempo lobbista de los gobiernos de Arabia Saudita y Qatar (acusados de ser financistas de ISIS), para los cuales consiguió millonarias ventas de armas (durante el periodo en que Clinton fue Secretaria de Estado las exportaciones de armas duplicaron a las realizadas en tiempos de Bush).
One of the very few remaining avenues for learning what the U.S. government is doing — beyond the propaganda that it wants Americans to ingest and thus deliberately disseminates through media outlets — is leaking and whistleblowing. Among the leading U.S. heroes in the war on terror have been the men and women inside various agencies of the U.S. government who discovered serious wrongdoing being carried out in secret, and then risked their own personal welfare to ensure that the public learned of what never should have been hidden in the first place.
En Perú, un mecanismo de control débil de la vigilancia hizo caer a un primer ministro. En 2015 la revista peruana, Correo Semanal, alegó que la Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional del Perú (DINI) había espiado ilegalmente a periodistas, empresarios, legisladores, políticos y miembros de las fuerzas armadas y sus familias. La DINI accedió supuestamente a información almacenada en el registro nacional de las propiedades del Perú, y almacenó esta información en expediente de cientos de personas.
That which US journalism proclaims as its most precious contribution to a democratic polity, that it finds and publishes the facts, shorn of bias, was absent this week. Neither the journalism of facts nor the algorithms of the polling organisations could grasp the popular swell of affection for a candidate that nearly all mainstream media found irredeemably flawed — perhaps because he was flawed.The media that do get it are those that carry emotion: social media above all others.
While most eyes are focused on the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, three major events prove how widespread, and dangerous, mass surveillance has become in the West. Standing alone, each event highlights exactly the severe threats that motivated Edward Snowden to blow his whistle; taken together, they constitute full-scale vindication of everything he’s done.
The journalist John Pilger, a close ally and frequent visitor of Assange in the embassy, told the Guardian that Assange “will have a contingency”, and stressed that WikiLeaks was bigger than its founder.“I can’t imagine that the restrictions will stop the leaks or deter WikiLeaks and Assange,” he said. “The significance of the action by Ecuador, which is clearly under pressure, is to show how frightened the US establishment is of further revelations reaching the public about its preferred presidential candidate.”
The government of Ecuador confirmed on Tuesday that it had decided “to temporarily restrict access” to the internet inside its embassy in London, effectively cutting off Julian Assange, the editor of Wikileaks, who has lived there since he was granted political asylum in 2012.Assange first reported on Monday that his internet connection had been “severed by a state party,” and the organization was forced to resort to a back-up plan to continue its work.
Fuente: Technology eats the truth