It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Danger of WikiLeaks: Why the organization could be doing more harm than good

page: 3
123
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
kix

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Great Post and well written but...flawed completely because it never ask the most difficult questions:

Why we need someone to tell the "real" thruth or information in the first place, why those secrets need to be kept.

basically why this has happened, that poses a responsability and acceptance of guilt of the parties whose inteligence reports have been compromised.

For example, one thing is to find out that your 14 year old is pregnant, and another why SHE IS PREGNANT in the FIRST PLACE.

So why there are troops in foreign soil making a war THAT WAS NOT DECLARED, why the USA have covert missions almost everywhere, diplomatic agendas to control foreign countries, corporations raping countries with government assitance so the prices in Wallmart can be low and keep their stupidised population not thinking about the mess they are really in?

They are dangerous because they expose the kind of dirty dealings and true nature of control they want to excert on sovereign nations. They expose the king and country BECAUSE the king is a pig that has no clothes and the country is in ruins, and that MY FRIEND IS DANGEROUS To the government because intelligent people will get the message.

Every nation does the same within is power, the problem is the USA HAS ENOUGH POWER to mess with everyone else.

Why, because they control the money (dollar), most of the oil prices, etc etc.... that is why its dangerous for this info to go out, because it exposes the real power behind the power.

my 2 cents...




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


Arguments like this are so weak though.
"Wikileaks can't be real because one of the all powerful nefarious groups that might exist would have them shut down/killed"
First, you have to consider how the government would be admonished for killing another countries citizen. Australia should and would be rightfully pissed. Not to mention the country he is residing in would be pissed that the U.S. did an operation in their country. Then you have to take into consideration that taking him out would do exactly nothing. Tell me, what would it do? Someone else would just release the information that much faster, not to mention the possibility of a dead man switch. They could actually be keeping him alive from other governments to prevent the release of something really damning. If he died or the site shut down 10 more would replace them AND would be made safer because people would be upset at the disappearance of Assange.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Disagree, the only way we will learn to stop wars and corruption if the information is widely available to independent media organisation, widely available to the public. Not just what BBC/Daily Mail/MSM/NBC/CNN force down our necks on a day to day basis with enough swing to give you a bias or a prejiduce.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Your missing the point and actually underscoring a point made in the OP (scope). The information isn't widely available. Instead, you have a very small amount of top layer (or relatively mundane) information that may or may not be accurate/real, and no way of judging its authenticity. In fact, it would be foolish of us to think, at the very least, that the government would not leak a bunch of information that would be misleading. This is of course even if WL itself is sincere in what they do, which the odds of that are low in of itself. So, as I mentioned in the OP, if WL itself is sincere, that doesn't mean that the leaked information is authentic and I couldn't imagine the government not using WL to spread disinformation, with or without Assange's knowledge.

Furthermore, just the very fact that people think they are getting some kind of transparency of government through WL, shows just how dangerous WL is to transparency, as it gives people the false belief that things are being made transparent.

Lets just suppose that Assange is sincere and the government, for some odd reason, doesn't take advantage of WL to spread disinformation by "leaking" it. We still wouldn't even be getting a tiny fraction of the information that is being kept secret, especially any info that would expose corruption. Instead, we would be getting a very small portion of the information that is lightly classified and does nothing other than to give people a false belief that we are getting transparency.

However, I think that the chances of disinformation not being fed through WL (either with or without their knowledge), is extremely low, so low in fact that I think you have a better chance of winning the lottery... every single day.




--airspoon



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
heres my problem with WL.
I had some expectations of these cables.. I expected atleast 1 of 5 things to have been mentioned;

1. conversations leading up to and right after 9/11.
2. up to and after Madrid.
3. up to and after London.
4. anything about Polish plane crash.
5. and anything leading up to or after Mumbai.

Nothing. so, for the moment, I see the information leaked to be a background story for what they want us to know.

I still expect these issues to be mentioned.. we will see.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


That's because those things are going to be classified beyong a level that an organization like WL would ever have access to. WL seems to be only getting the things that are at the very top layer of secrecy or classification. This is even if WL is sincere. Of course if it's a disinformation medium, then we will only get whatever the governments wants us to believe, with a few non-important embarassments for credibility's sake.

If you are waiting for WL to release any kind of information that would be a game changer or that would even lead people to start asking question, then you are only holding your breath for nothing.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
An interesting post, and you do bring up a few good points, but I'd like to provide a little complimentary perspective from outside America:

National Security


It would be absolutely crazy for anyone to think that there should be no secrets in government. I do however believe that the public is entitled to know everything about government, as the government is supposed to be by, for and of the people. However and with that being said, such a notion isn't very practical in our current socio-political climate, as there is a very real danger that some people, both domestic and foreign, would want to do harm to not only our country, but also our way of life.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'way of life' - there are several moral and ideological arguments against the American 'way of life'. Regardless, it is true that there are people who, for their own reasons, want to cause harm to Americans. I won't go into motivation, but I do agree that information on weapon systems, nukes etc should remain confidential.


However, in a Democratic republic (which is what we have), the government should be completely dependent upon the will of the people. We don't simply elect our politicians to make decisions for us, so much as we elect our politicians to make decisions by us


Unfortunately, in American government that is not exactly how it is. We all know about corporate influence, lobbying etc. but aside from that, because officials are allowed to conduct private business of their own they have their own interests which often conflict with those of the people. In fact, an often used Republican strategy is to affirm that officials with stakes in business are more enterprising and therefore 'more American' than others. Doesn't elected officials having contradictory business interests directly conflict with the idea of 'government of the people, for the people'?


A monarchy, aristocracy or despotic dictatorship, is one in which a governing body or governor makes decisions for the people, in spite of and independent of the public will.


Not necessarily - public will does not enter the equation. These systems are controlled by a small group of people which may or may not give a damn about public opinion, but do not necessarily conduct operations 'in spite of' public will. In some countries such as Thailand, the monarchy are held very highly - they're seen as a symbol of a country's wealth and heritage. My point is that a monarchy, dictatorship or aristocracy might in rare cases be supported by the majority of the people. In these cases, who has the right to tell them that they are wrong? These cases, however, are notoriously difficult to judge due to a lack of elections and possibilities of corruption in opinion polls.


However, any adult with an intelligence level worth its weight in salt, knows that people have to be well informed to make good decisions, thus we have to severely limit what is and what isn't kept secret, lest we not make good decisions.

Being 'well informed' can mean well informed of the country's political state, or well informed of the effects of a country's rule upon its citizens. Proponents of the latter could argue that, in fact, citizens don't need to know anything about the details of their government's workings, as long as it keeps them safe and happy.


We also have the problem of certain interests, entities and people who will use this secrecy to hide their corrupt deeds. Because we, the public, allow these people to have some secrecy, this basically gives these corrupt entities the ability to hijack our country and keep their deeds under wraps, essentially hiding under the cloak that we have given them..

This is true, but referring to my earlier point - is it the actions that make the politicians corrupt, or is it the fact that they can have interests of their own that corrupts them? Is there any particular need for a politician to have their own interests outwith government? Isn't that just a waste of resources that would be better spent dealing with the people's interests?

I do agree with your concluding statement about balance. A bit of nitpicking there, but over to the next point.

Disinformation

The media seems to be paying a lot of attention to WikiLeaks and not just to ridicule the organization.

Because all the journalists secretly love stuff like this. It's a big story and has enough political info to interest the left and enough gossip to interest the right. There's so many documents that both groups can find something 'shocking' to report, and it can be used as propaganda by both groups. The media are not propaganda for any one source, they simply relay any information they receive in a format designed to appeal most to their target audience. That's what gets them good ratings and a heavy paycheck. They're given this raw information that they can spin in any way they like, it's a field day.


The media seems to be only focused on the danger that this might hurt troops or national security.

Most big media companies have, I'm sure, seen diplomatic correspondence before. By definition they are well versed in current political climates and are capable of making a decision as to whether a document seems genuine or not. Leading to...


The government isn't denying any of this information.

If they did deny it and were proven liars, the headlines the next day would be to the effect of GOVERNMENT LIED TO THE PEOPLE OUTRIGHT, PROOF INCLUDED. I doubt the people would like that, regardless of their political persuasions. Besides, it'd give Wikileaks the edge in the next leak - they could say the sky was going to fall down and people would listen to them instead of their own government.


There has been no real effort to discredit the organization.


Julian Assange is still walking around.

How do you know about government efforts? Is there something that you're not telling us?! On the serious side, it's pretty clear that the US is angry about this leak and it has or will very likely send people to infiltrate Wikileaks at some point. You've seen the document on Cryptome yet? The US did compile information on to how to discredit Wikileaks, and it got leaked. I'm sure they're currently working against Wikileaks now with subtle disinformation campaigns, but if they did anything too openly it'd be pretty clear who did it. I think you're dramatically overestimating the US's influence on the world - an assassination would set all hell loose. Can you imagine if the US assassinated say, a human rights campaigner? During their maximum level of publicity, after they'd released a document criticizing the US of it's human rights record? Not only would they lose world standing, they'd likely cause riots that would destabilize several western countries when they realized that they were not actually as free as they thought. With the transparent rape case, everybody can see what's happening and how feeble it is, so we sort of forgive the US government for giving it a go, but if they started anything more extreme? Well, the world is watching.


The information is apparently making it out to the public.

Again, public opinion. Imagine if Obama ordered the FBI to block Fox News in the country after they endorsed Sarah Palin? Imagine if he got so miffed about his 57 states error that he ordered that line to be removed from every US Website? As soon as websites are blocked for 'extralegal' or political reasons, people will realize that America is not free, and there'd be comparisons to China's 'Great Firewall' internationally.


The DoD was apparently "hunting" Assange, yet couldn't seem to find him, in spite of the fact that he was moving in and out of certain countries, even giving an interview here in America to an MSM outlet.

The DoD was never 'hunting' Assange. They knew where he was, very likely, and just wanted to freak him out. By having him portrayed as some kind of runaway, checking over his shoulder for American agents he could correlate with movie caricatures and other negative depictions. Propaganda. This has the added effect of making Assange more paranoid, which works very well for discrediting him. In reality, any seizure at another country's borders could be seen as an attack on the country's sovereignity by the host government, as well as causing negative media attention. Remember that Assange isn't even a US citizen. Besides, host governments no doubt love to keep Assange about as it keeps the Americans off balance - no doubt they wonder if secrets are being passed to foreign government in any of these visits? Remember, it's likely that the American government knows little more than what we do about Assange.


The information leaked through WL is a far cry from causing change or any kind of backlash against government.

Just another reason for inaction. If this is the best Wikileaks can come up with, then they can provide an illusion of exposure for moderately important issues while the real problems are going on well in the dark. I don't think any of this depicts Wikileaks as a disinformation campaign, although I'm sure the American government would love people to think so - creating disinformation itself.

As for disinformation campaign, you bring up a few important issues, but ultimately planting leaks would be beneficial to the US - I agree. The onus in that case is for Wikileaks to check their submissions well, if it does conduct thorough checks, it should be able to separate the disinformation from the real stuff. Any number of corporations would love to push stories through Wikileaks, I'm sure, but if the stories are valid and in the public interest, doesn't that just add weight to Wikileaks' argument?

I think it's pretty clear from these conclusions that Wikileaks is mired in a diplomatic game of chess, but isn't actually an outlet for propaganda just yet.

Scope
I absolutely agree that Wikileaks does not have access to every operation the US is conducting. However, you can use the information that Wikileaks provides to low-level intelligence to get some idea of what high-level intelligence operations are being conducted. I wouldn't agree with the release of details on a high level operation, unless it was in the world's absolute public interest to know (ie. spying on the secretary general of the UN, or MKULTRA or Project Acoustic Kitty(!)) but at least this allows us to see the context, and perhaps infer the concept.

Conclusion
Ultimately, my conclusion is that Wikileaks is not, in fact, a malicious front for a US operation or an inherently flawed exercise in futility. I believe that Wikileaks will be used by many countries and intelligence departments, for many reasons, but can only help to cut the chaff from governments worldwide. Throughout its life, it may bring to light issues which are unsavory, issues we might feel that we don't actually want to know and the equivalent of presidential gossip passed as truth but I think it's pretty clear that the benefits outweigh the negatives.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Replying to OP.

Excellent thread, airspoon, S+F. I was about to start a thread on this topic myself, but as usual, you are ahead of the game.

I am VERY concerned about the possibility that Wikileaks is a COINTELPRO operation. Valuable whistle blowers with REAL information that the American public need to hear will be suckered into revealing themselves to Wikileaks, and I fear that when that happens not only will we never see the information, but the whistle blowers will be identified and outed.

The media's lapdog reporting on this issue screams conspiracy, and I for one am convinced that something is rotten with Julian Assange.

Thank you for this thread.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx
I am very wary of my government (U.S.), but I have to say that, the more of these releases I read, the more I think WL is misguided.

Also, ironically, the more I read the more I am feeling that I should be more on board with my government. The honest view of events brings more of a human touch to what is usually very a dry representation given in the press or alternatively a very biased and confusing mess presented by my fellow Americans, or foreigners that have alternate view points and motives.

I do not like a lot of things that U.S. has done, especially in the last decade, but opening these windows into the human relationships going on behind the scenes and letting some of the secret info out of the bag has made me realize that I can not know all the details and that being the case, i can only offer a partially valid opinion.


Great post.


When it comes to the game of international poker (diplomacy and war), you do not show everyone the cards in your hand. Each one of those cards are considered leverage, which we use to negotiate with other foreign countries. Out of all the countries it has damaged, Wikileaks has chosen the United States to declare war against. Sure, the events that followed the Iraq War was seeded in controversy, and there are many-many questions that should be answered. I completely understand certain perspectives on this site, which project a level of cautious skepticism of my government (U.S.). What I do not understand is why my fellow United States citizens think these leaks are justified. As our diplomats try to negotiate for peace, resources, and justice, the personal reflections in these cables (and other leaks) will make everything a living hell. Instead of walking away with a nuclear arms treaty, our diplomats may end up walking away with a declaration of war. It is that serious.

Now, everyone knows the cards we are holding. We no longer have anything to negotiate with.

reply to post by Myendica
 

Or, there is nothing to really tell. Maybe people are looking for something in which is not there. How many of these 9/11 conspiracy theories were planted by foreign governments and citizens; so they can discredit the United States on a global level? At the very heart and soul of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, French and Russian professors and citizens developed the first ones on a hobbyist site or blog. Manipulating the masses online is easier than you think.

reply to post by Baldur
 

If I did not know any better, I would say you have mastered 'the spin'. After someone says, "Smoking is bad for your health, and here are the reasons why..." You say, "Smoking may be bad for your health; however, alcohol (unrelated) causes more deaths in the long run."

Technically, you either bought the Wikileaks corporate line, or you work for Wikileaks as a public relations officer.

Ouch!


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by airspoon
 

Disagree, the only way we will learn to stop wars and corruption if the information is widely available to independent media organization, widely available to the public.

What people do not realize is that this type of information is a double-edged sword. Even though it may look good on paper, the overall implementation of such a leak can be disastrous. After building up a certain level of trust over the last 300 years, we are now back to square one on the diplomatic and war scene. As everyone sits in front of the camera, they smile and put on a show for the world. Once the cameras stop rolling, the first thing they will say is, "The United States cannot guarantee the safety and privacy of the information we talk about behind closed doors. We no longer trust you."

How does that stop a war? It causes one.


Originally posted by Crutchley29
Wikileaks have my support, it was only today that the US are calling to designate Wikileaks as a terrorist organization.

If I were working for our intelligence agencies, I would list WikiLeaks as an information terrorist organization. Its primary goal is to spread stolen information in order to project fear and instability across the globe. After they are done with damaging the United States, they will start focusing on Canada, England, Japan, Spain, etc... We will be living in a world where there is absolutely 'no trust'.

We will never-ever see peace.

edit on 29-11-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
At this point Wikileaks is little more than a tool for the administration. We will start to hear how Iran must be dealt with very soon!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
heres my problem with WL.
I had some expectations of these cables.. I expected atleast 1 of 5 things to have been mentioned;

1. conversations leading up to and right after 9/11.
2. up to and after Madrid.
3. up to and after London.
4. anything about Polish plane crash.
5. and anything leading up to or after Mumbai.

Nothing. so, for the moment, I see the information leaked to be a background story for what they want us to know.

I still expect these issues to be mentioned.. we will see.

Hi Myen,
I don't think all is being released at once, and there may be some stuff not being released.
I am not buying this Wiki disinfo scenario at all. It makes no sense, just about everybody around the world has got a hit. The time has come for first off, treating the public at large as a higher entity, and less as a source of manipulation. Second the idea of a supreme power base, or pact is going to be seriously questioned from now on. It is The intelligence community's own fault for greating such a system as SIPDIS in the first place, and that it is now instantly, extinct. It was as vunerable as the weakest link in the chain, it only needed an individual in the system to break his secrecy classification, and it seems, that is exactly what has happened. You must remember, a lot of these cables are against the person...named individuals, including Prince Andrew. They have a lot of explaining to do, and as yet, noone has yet said that these cables are bullshy, noone has yet said that the Warlogs are bullshy, and the Iraq video was declared genuine footage from the very start. You have to keep it in mind also, that the cables were about intimate conversation among individuals, and when those conversations were sent, those individuals had no idea that several thousand people were reviewing them in the system.
this video from the Guardian will do much of the explanation,

www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 29-11-2010 by smurfy because: Add link, amend.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Baldur
 


Please forgive my presumptions, but do you by any chance have a professional or official association with Wikileaks?

I only ask because you are a recently joined member with 11 posts - more than half of them well-timed defenses of Wikileaks in response to suggestions that the organization may not be what it appears.

Just curious.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Fiberx
 


I think that's the point, they are incredibly genius. In fact, they are arguably the most genius organization on the planet, seeing how they attract only the brightest people with an unlimited amount of resources. Why You may be sales clerk, police officer or mail-carrier (thus know your job perfectly), they are intelligence professionals and do this kind of thing for a living. It is their job!

--airspoon


I only have one question then, if they are incredibly genius, and they have the brightest people, with an unlimited amount of resources, then WHY, did 9-11 happen?? And, why can they not find a kidney patient hidden in caves somewhere in the desert???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 



I only have one question then, if they are incredibly genius, and they have the brightest people, with an unlimited amount of resources, then WHY, did 9-11 happen?? And, why can they not find a kidney patient hidden in caves somewhere in the desert???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Actually, many people make a superb argument that 9/11 happened as a result of their genius. I think that many people in government are much better off since 9/11. Not only do they have much more control over the population, but they have literally made trillions of dollars (and counting) for the corporate elite (to include themselves). They also finally got that regime change in Iraq and Iraq oil is once again being traded in USD.

The whole "War on Terror" is the best thing to happen to certain influences or factions in government, since the cold war (if not before), I know that I'm certainly not convinced that Al Qeada, acting completely independent of the US Government, allied governments or US corporations, committed 9/11. I know what people with extreme conflicts of interests are telling me, but I'm certainly not going to take their word for it, which is required to believe their official conspiracy theory.


--airspoon


reply to post by Baldur
 


I'm not even about to respond to that because most, if not all of it, is based off of misinterpretations. Maybe due to language barrier? In any case, you have completely misunderstood the OP. Read it again.


--airspoon
edit on 29-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)


kix

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Myendica
 


.......

If you are waiting for WL to release any kind of information that would be a game changer or that would even lead people to start asking question, then you are only holding your breath for nothing.


--airspoon


Correct. Once I posted here (years ago) what would happen if someone here had real info that would be a "game Changer" something the size of watergate or bigger. Long history short..... not happening.

If one day I enter here and I get the message that ATS is down because (insert your innane reason here) security reasons, THEN ILL BELIEVE someone here has actually nailed down a conspiracy with PROOF.

In the mean time WikiL will keep us busy and trying to follow the ball (basically distracting us)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Could you point out one specific leak with link and explain exactly how it endangers someone? I'd like that instead of just a pure analysis. You should've put those in the OP.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Could you point out one specific leak with link and explain exactly how it endangers someone? I'd like that instead of just a pure analysis. You should've put those in the OP.

US diplomats spied on UN leadership


Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

How do you think that leak will affect the future? China and The United States are already standing on thin ice. Do you think China will welcome us with open hands, or do you think their government will push for war? We are already standing on the line that says, "Cold War Starts Here!"

Another one...

US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis


The United States was catapulted into a worldwide diplomatic crisis today, with the leaking to the Guardian and other international media of more than 250,000 classified cables from its embassies, many sent as recently as February this year.

At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables – many designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership.

These two revelations alone would be likely to reverberate around the world. But the secret dispatches, which were obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowers' website, also reveal Washington's evaluation of many other highly sensitive international issues.

Damage to our diplomacy has already begun. Now, we wait and see the fallout.

It that what you wanted to know?

edit on 29-11-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Are you saying that they shouldn't have leaked this part which proves Hillary gave illegal orders? This is exactly the reason why such leaks should be made.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by Baldur
 


Please forgive my presumptions, but do you by any chance have a professional or official association with Wikileaks?

I only ask because you are a recently joined member with 11 posts - more than half of them well-timed defenses of Wikileaks in response to suggestions that the organization may not be what it appears.

Just curious.


In a response to this and the other similar post, no I don't have any particular relations with Wikileaks. I do, however, admire what they do. I find most of the stuff discussed here to be a little bit extreme and to violate Occam's razor (Illuminati controlling the world, alien invasions, cloning) and yet other topics I am interested, yet currently impartial in (9/11 truth, nwo concept, economical rigging). Wikileaks, though, I've followed with a particular interest.

I'd invite you to be a little more tolerant of another person's opinions, since there are so many that are guilty of marginalizing conspiracy theorists and actively preventing them from getting a platform to voice their opinions. If you do that, you're really playing the 'us and them' game that is being played against you - if you support Wikileaks, you must work with them. If you're against Wikileaks, you must be a spook. If you don't want security, you're a terrorist. You see where I'm coming from?

I've not put any spin, please feel free to dissect my post in a cognizant and articulate way, I'll respond to it. General accusations of 'spin doctor' don't cut it.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Excellent thread! Completetly agree and I have stated similar on other threads about WL over the last day or so. They, like all media, have an agenda so they present the side they wish us to see to make their point, and hide the other side. Its called bias and its common knowledge among media outlets. The UK is rife with media bias, and everyone knows which paper supports the Conservatives and which support labour. Its the same with WL, but their bias is more sinister - they haven't showed their hand yet. They tease and drip-feed us to draw us in like slavering dogs - and so many people buy it!

Before faithfully swallowing everything WL sends out, consider the source, and consider what their reason is for releasing certain information. And remember, the other side of the story exists, we just haven't been shown it yet.



new topics

top topics



 
123
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join