The “cherry picking” implications of this tweet:
surprised me.
Wikileaks, the New York Times and the Guardian “cherry picked” the Afghanistan War Diaries, as just one example:
Most of the material, though classified “secret” at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its “uncensorable” servers. (Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation)
How that for privilege? Not only can you participate in activities that blight the lives of others but the “independent” press will protect you from exposure. Now that’s Privilege with a capital P.
I admit there is an appalling lack of coverage of major Western governments, corporations and individuals, thus far in the Panama Papers reporting but if access to the leak spreads, that should be quickly corrected.
Ahem, yes, “…if access to the leak spreads…” being the operative condition.
Not access to some of the leak. Not access to the leaks with “…harmful material…” redacted. Not access to “…relevant…” part of the leaks.
Access to all of the leaked material. No exceptions.
If we are unable to effectively participate in government without government transparency, how are we to judge media reporting without media transparency?