BagNews Archives About Staff BagNews is a progressive site dedicated to visual politics and the analysis of news images.
Sunday, May 19, 2013

Twitter

@bagnewsnotes »
Advertisement

August 2, 2010

Blowback from the War Logs: The (Visual) Vendetta against Julian Assange

By Michael Shaw

What I like about the headline/photo combination from ForeignPolicy.com (just below) is how well it captures the 180º turn in the Afghan War Logs story.  In the space of a week, the focus of the massive document release — at least, in the eyes of the Pentagon, the NYT, and much of the larger media  — has gone from the failure of the war in Afghanistan, to the supposedly outrageous behavior of Julian Assange for putting the reputation of innocent lives corporate media and the Pentagon at risk.

Beyond referencing the release itself, hoisting the paper calls out the media for largely soft-peddling the story and failing to apply a more critical eye. Throw in the headline, though, and what we see is a case of “shoot the messenger.”

It gets worse, though. Note the thumbnail and caption on the FP home page — an image that’s been finding its way into blowback stories as well as profiles of Assange over the past few days.

The photo casts Assange in a surreptitious light, and the reference to him as “Mr. Wikileaks” and speculating about going to jail is not just derogatory but defamatory — though not any more  defamatory than the steady stream of NYT articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) freely speculating about the potential guilt and complicity of every person they could possibly name over the past few days with some connection to Assange and the U.S. military.

See how corporate media, stung by the Wikileaks disclosure, has retaliated with the use of this photo. (You can check out WAPO; The Globe and Mail — with some interesting accompanying text; and TwinCities.com, to cite a few.) The character assassination doesn’t get any better, though, than the slanderous caption (“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being all shifty-eyed in London today”) accompanying the photo leading this post from a story in NY Magazine.

But then, its only been a week yet. Who knows what new frame a vindictive corporate media is yet to put around the target.

« Prev

Next »

  • Spaniard

    Wikileaks is nothing more than proof that the press is not doing its job. Two enormous fuckups like Iraq and Afghanistan are getting covered every day.

    What is worse, civil liberties are dying left and right, and nobody is doing a thing. See here:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/31/wikileaks-volunteer.html

    And we thought Obama would be different :(

    • KShipp

      “Compared Reportage by The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Der Spiegel of Germany on The WikiLeaks release of ‘The Afghan War Diary, 2004- 2010,’
      July 25- 27”

      WikiLeaks, the online “whistleblower” site that released the widely-reported April 5, 2010 “Collateral Murder” video from the Iraq war, made available 92,000 U.S. military field reports from the war in Afghanistan, to 3 media outlets prior to general public release: The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Der Spiegel of Germany.

      U.S. army intelligence officer Bradley Manning purposely sent these army field reports, and other information, to the public whistleblower site, whose mission is to publish information deemed vital to the public interest, because he said “the networks contained “incredible things, awful things… that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC.”

      The documents are available now for public viewing:

      http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010

      The New York Times’ stories did not stress or highlight civilian deaths, but focus upon Pakistan, and seek to emphasize the unimportance of the newly released documents (92,000 field reports) in its leads, and the substance, of its stories,
      in 4 of 8 published pieces July 25-27, 2010: 5 news articles, 1 editorial, 1 note to readers, and 1 preface to three reader’s letters.

      The reports by the Guardian of London and Der Spiegel of Germany lead, and contain, different emphases in the leads, and substance, of their stories:

      Notably, civilian deaths and the importance of the 92K field reports and their implications for the war in Afghanistan, and its international repercussions.

      Here are the 3 sets of article titles and leads, published July 25-27, 2010, gathered for an explicit comparison, as “prima facie” evidence.

      {First, here are the New York Times articles}:

      [Quotes are the original leads headlining the articles]

      *1. “Piecing Together the Reports and Deciding What to Publish: A Note to the Readers,” [by the Editors of The New York Times]

      “Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, but there are times when the information is of significant public interest’.”

      New York Times, July 25, 2010

      *2. “View is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan,”
      by C. J. Chivers, Carlotta Gall, Andrew W. Lehren, Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, and Eric Schmitt, with contributions from Jacob Harris and Alan McLean,

      New York Times, July 25, 2010

      *3. “Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert,”
      by Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt, and Andrew W. Lehren.

      “A trove of military documents made public on Sunday by an organization called WikiLeaks reflects deep suspicions among American officials that Pakistan’s military spy service has for years guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants.”

      New York Times, July 25, 2010

      *4. “In Disclosing Secret Documents, WikiLeaks Seeks Transparency,”
      by Eric Schmitt.

      New York Times, July 25, 2010

      *5. “Getting Lost in Afghanistan’s Fog of War,” by Andrew Exum.

      “The WikiLeaks documents don’t add to our understanding of the Afghan war — they further confuse a complex conflict.”

      New York Times, July 26, 2010.

      *6. “WikiLeaks: Pakistan’s Double Game,” Editorial by the Editors of New York Times.

      “If President Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

      New York Times, July 26, 2010

      *7. “Leaks Add to Pressure on White House over Strategy,” by Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper.

      The New York Times, July 26, 2010

      *8. “A Secret Archive of What We Already Knew: Readers respond to articles about the leaked documents about the war in Afghanistan.”

      New York Times, July 27, 2010

      {Second, compare article titles from The Guardian of London}:

      *9. “Julian Assange profile: WikiLeaks founder an uncompromising rebel,”
      by Nick Davies, guardian.co.uk, Sunday July 25 2010

      *10. “Afghanistan war logs: WikiLeaks founder rebuts White House criticism”
      by Alexandra Topping and Jo Adetunji, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

      *11. WikiLeaks war logs revelations will be far-reaching, say MPs.”
      by Matthew Taylor, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

      *12. “The war logs can bring transparency to Afghanistan.”
      by James Denselow, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

      *13.“Afghanistan war logs: a game-changer for British politics?”
      by Eric Joyce, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

      *14. “Data journalism’ scores a massive hit with Wikileaks revelations.”
      by Roy Greenslade, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

      {Third, compare news articles from Der Speigel of Germany}:

      *15. “The Afghanistan Protocol: Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It.” SPIEGEL Online International, 25.07.2010

      *16. “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the ‘War Logs’: ‘I Enjoy Crushing Bastards.’”
      SPIEGEL Online International, 26.07.2010

      *17. “Task Force 373 and Targeted Assassinations:US Elite Unit Could Create Political Fallout for Berlin.” SPIEGEL Online International, 26.07.2010

      *18. ”Accident-Prone Wonder Weapons: Afghanistan War Logs Reveal Shortcomings of
      US Drones.” SPIEGEL Online International, 27.07.2010

      This data set is well worth comparing to the New York Times’ coverage of the ‘infamous’ “Collateral Murder” video released by Wikileaks, April 5, 2010.”

  • Malika

    Wow….”Being all shifty-eyed”??? That’s a pretty amazing caption. Borrows its snarkiness from the gossip rags.

  • slideshowblah

    well, maybe next year

  • Matt Platte

    Thanks. I echo your point of view re: corporate everything. BTW, is he “all shifty-eyed” because he’s looking to the Left? ;)

  • black dog barking

    I don’t see “shifty-eyed”, I see a politely patient “waiting for the questioner to finish his speech/question so I can repeat the answer I just gave, more slowly this time”. It would go quicker if he just gave them the answers they were looking for so they could, you know, report.

  • http://agrippinaminor.com/scarabus/ Wayne Dickson

    Did you see Lara Logan’s story on 60 Minutes last night? She was totally pushing the war. Do you think it’s coincidental that we get confirmation of how horrible a moral and geo-political mess this unwinnable thing is, then pooh-poohing of the importance of the revelations, then attacks on the source of the revelations, and then a major network story combining blaring trumpets and dire warnings? And doesn’t the time cover fit the pattern?

    Different White House, same media, same game we’ve seen before. It always seems to work.

  • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

    Could it be that the war logs really didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know? Could it be that Julian Assange is just another publicity whore, trying desperately to be this generation’s Daniel Ellsberg, but floundering because he has no actual big secrets to reveal?

    The press stopped doing its job back during the Reagan administration, so their abject failure to cover anything of importance isn’t news, either. But I don’t trust Assange anymore than I trust UPI. And what a sad commentary that is.

    • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com Stan B.

      Even if that were true cmac, he still provides a service that the user is not getting elsewhere. Personally, I just hope he doesn’t have a “car accident” somewhere down the road.

    • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

      What service is that? Confirmation of what had become the accepted wisdom, that the war is going badly, that Pakistan double-deals, that the Taliban have access to missiles, that the military undercounts civilian deaths?

      So what? It changes nothing. People against the war remain against it, those for it are still for it, those who really don’t know what to do still don’t know. People who believe Obama is the same as all the other guys continue to believe it; people who believe Obama has been more open have their belief confirmed; people who already knew Bush was grossly incompetent still know it. And conspiracy theorists of every stripe can claim with feverish certainty that their conspiracies are not just theories…

    • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com Stan B.

      cmac- First off, I think you already answered you’re own question- yes, he provides the proof of what the networks won’t even hint at. That IS something- it eliminates the plausible deniability that say… Congress had at the beginning of the Iraq invasion.

      And it’s certainly not his fault that no one else gives two shits. He’s put his own personal safety at risk (and don’t think otherwise) to do it this, and you’re still pissed that he aint personally leading the revolution on the White House lawn. He did more than his his part- the real question remains, when will we do ours?

    • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

      You misunderstand me, Stan. I don’t think there’s anything shocking to reveal, since we went into Afghanistan for a specific reason which was clearly stated at the time: the Taliban offered al Qaeda a safe harbor. They needed to be removed from power. Bush gave it a perfunctory shot because he wasn’t interested in Afghanistan; he wanted to go to Iraq. He celebrated his almost-success by lying and weaseling and strutting us into an illegal war, while Afghanistan slipped back towards its own special abyss. And all the while, the military behaved as it always behaves, which is to offer press releases which are contradicted by the public’s own lying eyes.

      Lead the revolution to the White House? Why? Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do – he’s trying to clean up the mess left by Bush, and then he intends to extricate us as humanely as possible. It’s an ugly situation, but the only thing that could make it worse would be an abrupt departure by US troops.

      As to Assange’s personal safety – yeah, when that big ego of his pops like a balloon, it’s gonna hurt.

    • counterintelementalist

      ‘What did he say?’
      ‘9/11 shakedown’ -or- (misplaced) values in a u-inverse of (misplaced) chances, ring Assange out: a dissqualified kookie-kutout. -however- ‘2nd wurst, same as the 1st’
      nietzsche, in “the birth of tragedy (from the spirit of music)”, showed how the ‘i’m-mut(able)’ miming ‘chorus’ voiced its collective/resonant-poetic memory. in a later fragment, “on music and the word,” he noted that ‘harmony’/’stops’ are most likely ‘lyre/ic’-'ally’ narratized. Soo…in symphonic drama from wagner to paul green to simon/fogerty to pop-id/i/Om liszt/spake…and…for Right/Left con-sonantal/co-inspiring: grok to, “heard the singers (playin’), how we (cheered) for more…”

    • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com Stan B.

      cmac- Yes, we seem to be talking past each mother, but when the head of CIA tells us there’s only 50 to 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, why are we doing our best to increase that number by killing more Afghani civilians and turning more against us each and every day? If it’s one thing these documents do prove, it’s that there are two wars, one which is being led by Special Forces- accountable to no one. Sooner, and unfortunately, most probably later, the US will be forced to leave there (no one knows this better than the people of Afghanistan) tails between our legs just like in Viet Nam. And the people who live in that general area will have to deal with matters themselves, as always. Ten years of our “protective” presence did not prevent that girl from getting her ears and nose cut off, and as an Afghani father said, “Unlike the Afghani police, at least the Taliban doesn’t rape our boys.”

    • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

      Stan, the reason there are only 50 to 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan is because the Taliban have not yet regained control of the government. The disfiguring of the girl in the Times story was far less likely to have happened in 2002, when the Taliban was still on the run, than in 2010, when they’d had years to regroup. Our nine years in Afghanistan don’t represent nine years of progress. During six of those years our presence was no more than an afterthought and did nothing to prevent the Taliban from regrouping. Breaking their hold a second time will be more complicated, because they don’t present as big or clear a target as they did when they were sitting pretty in Kabul.

      What this adds up to is that this is all complicated, I don’t know if it’s hopeless yet, that Assange’s leaks didn’t contribute anything to the discussion but a hook for people to hang their frustrations on. He’s neither hero nor a villain, but he does have an agenda. I read his agenda as undermining governments’ abilities to keep secrets. Stopping this war is, I believe, secondary for him.

    • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com Stan B.

      cmac- If undermining government secrets is his whore mongering, publicity seeking, raison d’etre- more power to him, and everyone like him. How many wars would ever get off the ground and then be allowed to fester indefinitely if it wasn’t for the lies that are perpetrated in the guise of truth? Let’s have out with all the dirty nooks and crannies- then we’ll really see who manipulates hearts and minds.

  • http://leftistmoon.wordpress.com Wordsmith

    He was on Democracy Now! for just a bit on one night last week (a longer time the following night), but he said sometihng about ‘the state’ in a way I’ve not heard addressed in years, ….. f*cking years ….

    It got my attention.

    • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

      What did he say?

    • http://leftistmoon.wordpress.com Wordsmith

      CMAC:

      JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, it’s a matter about whether the coercive power of the state should be used to stop people sharing information, who have no direct connection to the source of the information. You can’t use the coercive power of the state to stop people spreading rumors, to stop people discussing political life, and sophisticated US jurisprudence understands that. And that is why you have things like the First Amendment, which takes the press outside the legislative process, because in the end it is the communication of knowledge which regulates the legislature, which creates the Constitution.

      http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/26/the_new_pentagon_papers_wikileaks_releases

      There have been a number of shows at DN that offers Mr. Assange as a guest since this broke.

    • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

      Thank you, Wordsmith.

  • bystander

    Well, you know, Julian Assange dumped 90,000 pages of information on them. Like he expects them to work, or something. Our press doesn’t work. They go to parties. With the Bidens and the Emmanuels and play with super soakers, and then tweet and write about it. I mean, they ain’t gonna stay up nights and actually read that stuff. Now if Julian wanted to throw a barbecue, and put up a tire swing, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/14/125218/408/375/476600"the press might respond differently.

  • bystander

    correction: … and put up a tire swing, the press might respond differently.

  • Glenn May

    Interesting that many of the attack pieces focus on Assange’s alleged egoism (which in the U.S. means he has neglected to talk stupid so as to not threaten anyone). I don’t recall Cheney or Rumsfeld ever being criticized for having outsized egos – in fact their bravado in killing people was celebrated as manly.
    But of course the every other excuse known to man is being trotted out to keep this war going (it’s about women’s rights! it’s about keeping schools open for children!), so it should not surprise me to see the defenders of war at the NYT and elsewhere sink to nothing but the ad hominem.

    • http://motherrr.blogspot.com cmac

      If you don’t remember Cheney and Rumsfeld’s egos being criticized, either you were born yesterday, or you weren’t paying attention. I’m astounded, by the way, that Rumsfeld has been so little in the news since he left the Cabinet. This was a man who did an amazing amount of damage, and who was offensive at every opportunity, but he’s a non-story now. I’d sure like to see THAT ego popped, along with Assange’s.

  • K.. Shipp

    “Compared Reportage by The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Der Spiegel of Germany on the WikiLeaks release of ‘The Afghan War Diary, 2004- 2010,’ July 25- 27”

    WikiLeaks, the online “whistleblower” site that released the widely-reported April 5, 2010 “Collateral Murder” video from the Iraq war, made available 92,000 U.S. military field reports from the war in Afghanistan, to 3 media outlets prior to general public release: The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Der Spiegel of Germany.

    U.S. army intelligence officer Bradley Manning purposely sent these army field reports, and other information, to the public whistleblower site, whose mission is to publish information deemed vital to the public interest, because he said “the networks contained “incredible things, awful things… that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC.”

    The documents are available now for public viewing:

    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010

    The New York Times’ stories did not stress or highlight civilian deaths, but focus upon Pakistan, and seek to emphasize the unimportance of the newly released documents (92,000 field reports) in its leads, and the substance, of its stories,
    in 4 of 8 published pieces July 25-27, 2010:

    5 news articles, 1 editorial, 1 note to readers, and 1 preface to three reader’s letters.

    The reports by the Guardian of London and Der Spiegel of Germany lead, and contain, different emphases in the leads, and substance, of their stories: notably, civilian deaths and the importance of the 92K field reports and their implications for the war in Afghanistan, and its international repercussions.

    Here are the 3 sets of article titles and leads, published July 25-27, 2010, gathered for an explicit comparison, as “prima facie” evidence.

    First, here are titles of the New York Times articles:

    [Quotes are the original leads headlining the articles]

    *1. “Piecing Together the Reports and Deciding What to Publish: A Note to the Readers,” [by the Editors of The New York Times]

    “Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, but there are times when the information is of significant public interest’.”

    New York Times, July 25, 2010

    *2. “View is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan,”
    by C. J. Chivers, Carlotta Gall, Andrew W. Lehren, Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, and Eric Schmitt, with contributions from Jacob Harris and Alan McLean.

    New York Times, July 25, 2010

    *3. “Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert,”
    by Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt, and Andrew W. Lehren.

    “A trove of military documents made public on Sunday by an organization called WikiLeaks reflects deep suspicions among American officials that Pakistan’s military spy service has for years guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants.”

    New York Times, July 25, 2010

    *4. “In Disclosing Secret Documents, WikiLeaks Seeks Transparency,”
    by Eric Schmitt.

    New York Times, July 25, 2010

    *5. “Getting Lost in Afghanistan’s Fog of War,” by Andrew Exum.

    “The WikiLeaks documents don’t add to our understanding of the Afghan war — they further confuse a complex conflict.”

    New York Times, July 26, 2010.

    *6. “WikiLeaks: Pakistan’s Double Game,” Editorial by the Editors of New York Times.

    “If President Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

    New York Times, July 26, 2010

    *7. “Leaks Add to Pressure on White House over Strategy,” by Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper.

    The New York Times, July 26, 2010

    *8. “A Secret Archive of What We Already Knew: Readers respond to articles about the leaked documents about the war in Afghanistan.”

    New York Times, July 27, 2010

    {Second, compare article titles from The Guardian of London}:

    *9. “Julian Assange profile: WikiLeaks founder an uncompromising rebel,”
    by Nick Davies, guardian.co.uk, Sunday July 25 2010

    *10. “Afghanistan war logs: WikiLeaks founder rebuts White House criticism”
    by Alexandra Topping and Jo Adetunji, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

    *11. WikiLeaks war logs revelations will be far-reaching, say MPs.”
    by Matthew Taylor, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

    *12. “The war logs can bring transparency to Afghanistan.”
    by James Denselow, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

    *13.“Afghanistan war logs: a game-changer for British politics?”
    by Eric Joyce, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

    *14. “Data journalism’ scores a massive hit with Wikileaks revelations.”
    by Roy Greenslade, guardian.co.uk, July 26 2010

    {Third, compare news articles from Der Speigel of Germany}:

    *15. “The Afghanistan Protocol: Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It.” SPIEGEL Online International, 25.07.2010

    *16. “WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the ‘War Logs’: ‘I Enjoy Crushing Bastards.’”
    SPIEGEL Online International, 26.07.2010

    *17. “Task Force 373 and Targeted Assassinations:US Elite Unit Could Create Political Fallout for Berlin.” SPIEGEL Online International, 26.07.2010

    *18. ”Accident-Prone Wonder Weapons: Afghanistan War Logs Reveal Shortcomings of
    US Drones.” SPIEGEL Online International, 27.07.2010

    This data set is well worth comparing to the New York Times’ coverage of ‘infamous’ “Collateral Murder” video released by Wikileaks, April 5, 2010.”

Recent Comments

Popular Topics

More topics »

Popular Entries


Archives

Recent Entries