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.

 

Editor of the NY Times admits on BBC he clears Wikileaks Cables with Government.

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Editor of the NY Times admits on BBC he clears Wikileaks Cables with Government.


www.salon.com

That paper's Executive Editor, Bill Keller, appeared in a rather amazing BBC segment yesterday with Carne Ross, former British Ambassador to the U.N., who mocked and derided Keller for being guided by the U.S. Government's directions on what should and should not be published (video below):
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
In a video linked by Glenn Greenwald from Salon is the interview Which I'll post here. I'm not sure how the hasn't been posted yet and I apologize if it is in the wrong category.
I came across this on another forum I frequent, it's sad that the New York Times, the paper that handled the Pentagon Papers, should now be looking to the U.S. Government for approval of which leaks to publish.


www.salon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
So New York is asking the US Govt. what secrets of theirs it can expose? hahaha

Kinda defeats the point, does it not?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Actually, I read the articles on the New York Times website the day that they came out, and they said right up front that they'd cleared some of it with the government.

Whether you want to think them evil or not, newspapers aren't interested in getting someone killed by just randomly publishing something that would specifically endanger a person. I would guess that they were more interested in asking the government to redact anything that might do so than in saying "can we get your okay to run this?" and their published disclaimer did say that they were publishing, despite requests that they not do so.

(Edit to add:

For those whom don't understand the notion of redaction, this:

"undercover agent John Smith, age 28, offered to pretend to be Bin Laden's barber and dye his hair blue for easy identification"

becomes

"undercover agent _________, age __, offered to pretend to be Bin Laden's _______________ for easy identification"

or, if they're really extreme:

"_______________________________________________"


)
edit on 8-12-2010 by adjensen because: clarification



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Or the Government asks them to only print certain items so it appears to the reader that Wiki has an agenda..
That is what I'm seeing...
What the media is releasing and what some here at ATS are releasing are obviously different..
eg: I have heard little mention of Israel in the media yet I've seen many leaks relating to them on ATS threads..



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Redaction of names and information to protect people endangered by the relased of those names and information do not require approval and guidance by the Government.
They require common sense and judgement.
When they released the Pentagon Papers did they ask the military, "Is this okay to print?"



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 


This does not surprise me one bit.

They also suppressed John Munsell's story according to what Big John told me. The story would have really screwed up the plans to put in place S-510 the new "food safety farce" that will wipe out smaller competitors of big AG.

Our US MSM is nothing but a propaganda machine for the big corporations. I have seen a number of cases when they have deliberately broadcast lies to serve an agenda.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
If the government was so concerned about this information coming out, why would they not just tell the NYT not to publish any of it? This also points the very real possibility that at least some of these leaks are disinfo.

On another note, you can't expect the MSM (NYT included), to do their duty as part of the press corps. In fact, the MSM kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a "free-press" to begin with.

I'd be willing to bet that our founding fathers are absolutely ashamed at what this country has been subjugated to. This is not what they intended for a "free-country". A government "by", "for" and "of" the people is a great idea, though too bad the idea has slipped through the fingers of the generation who failed at the responsibility that was handed down to them.



--airspoon



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
This also points the very real possibility that at least some of these leaks are disinfo.

if some are disinfo
then all of them are disinfo
with an agenda.

the agenda here is not to release documents
that are anti-establishment,
but the agenda is to only release documents that
harm opponents of the Rothschild Banking cartel.

So if there is an agenda for that purpose,
that makes wikileaks a CIA Op.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
If the government was so concerned about this information coming out, why would they not just tell the NYT not to publish any of it? This also points the very real possibility that at least some of these leaks are disinfo.


Again, they DID ask them not to publish any of it (they can't "tell" them not to do so, of course!)

Here, I hunted up the original article that I cited: www.nytimes.com...

(Login required, the first one here: www.bugmenot.com... will get you in.)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Not a big surprise since I've been reading dozens of Wikileak documents and a lot of them are way worse than anything reported in the MSM.

The MSM is ignoring all the big scandals while saying that Wikileak is very dangerous and that the newspapers might be sued!

The MSM are controlling what Wikileak information is in the light... not a big surprise there.
edit on 8-12-2010 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 


Great find, S&F. Another puzzle piece in place.

Ah, see.

This fits like a glove with Assange's own statements as to the why of the need for mainstream media attention.

It is really uncanny of them, incredibly smart. Devious.


Conspiracies are cognitive devices. They are able to out
think the same group of individuals acting alone


Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate (the conspiratorial
environment), pass it around the conspirators and then act on the
result. We can see conspiracies as a type of device that has inputs (information
about the environment) and outputs (actions intending to change or maintain
the environment).

What does a conspiracy compute?
It computes the next action of the conspiracy
Now I we ask the question: how effective is this device? Can we compare it to
itself at different times? Is the conspiracy growing stronger or weakening? This
is a question that asks us to compare two values.

Can we find a value that describes the power of a conspiracy?
We could count the number of conspirators, but that would not capture the
difference between a conspiracy and the individuals which comprise it. How do
they differ? Individuals in a conspiracy conspire. Isolated individuals do not.
We can capture that difference by adding up all the important communication

cryptome.org...
Conspiracy as Governance
me @ iq.org (Julian Assange)
December 3, 2006

The best party is but a kind of conspiracy against the rest
of the nation. (Lord Halifax) (As quoted by Julian Assange)
edit on 8-12-2010 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
And if I may suggest, someone save, record multiple copies of this admission.
And quick like. I have seen ones like this "dissapear".



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join