Assange is aiming at maximum impact. He knows human nature well enough to understand that people love polarization, and he exploits human weaknesses in order to accomplish his goals. Who has ever heard of Cryptome or Steven Aftergood? Very few. By contrast, everyone knows Assange these days. You may find his approach distasteful, but you can't claim it's not effective.
In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal. Ultimately, I don't blame the soldiers, for they were following orders. I blame the American people for blindly trusting their government and failing to demand accountability from the morally challenged elected officials. A docile populace is the first step towards tyranny.
If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that. Anger in the face of tragedy is preferrable to utter indifference. If Assange is self-aggrandizing and has an agenda, I am fine with that too, for he has done a great job so far and it would be enormously unrealistic to demand zero self-interest from a person who has amassed such immense power in such a short period of time.
In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal
I think this is the core of our disagreement; because while I agree with you I abhor the idea of pushing an agenda and opinion on anyone. The video could have stood for itself; instead I believe Assange weakened it via it's presentation in an effort to raise the profile of Wikileaks.
If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that.
It matters; it matters a lot. Because the editorial was gleeful and gloating. It was saying "screw you US government" - and that is silly because the video stands for itself.
That Wikileaks has an agenda is, in my mind, wrong - when the information you present/possess comes from secret sources and contains highly controversial material it should be treated objectively.
I don;t care of Wikileaks languishes in obscurity like Cryptome; enough people know of it that anything seriously big (like the video) will make the media.
These sites are important simply by existing because they present a critical danger to those who want to abuse government positions; I don't want someone aggrandizing and pretentious and seemingly biased as those politicians presenting the information.
I disagree that the video could have stood for itself. WikiLeaks sent people to Baghdad to meet the children who were in the van that was shot by the Apache. That's investigative journalism, and it's laudable.
If the Pentagon shows you footage of a combat operation in which insurgents are hiding in a building that is seconds later destroyed by an Hellfire missile and they tell you that there were no civilian casualties, you may believe they're telling you the truth. If someone investigates the attack and finds out there were non-combatants in that building and that the Apache attack was a stupid abuse of force, later releases footage with captions suggesting a version of the facts different from the Pentagon's, then such editorializing is not bias, it's an accurate portrayal of the facts. The problem is that when the mainstream media is so biased and people have grown accustomed to it, then a cold-blooded depiction of the facts may look as an attempt to manipulate people's opinions, as if telling the truth were propaganda.
Lastly, Assange is burning bridges wherever he goes, and he's probably not making that much money. He lives the life of an international man of mystery, which may sound cool until one thinks of the downsides. A person who willingly embraces such lifestyle can only have a strong desire to amass power / fame and deliver impact. Assange is no saint, but he's useful, and that's all that matters.
This probably isn't the place to argue out the difference (for the record the points you highlight are not what I refer to as editorial - I mean stuff like calling it collateral murder etc. which is unnecessary) however...
Lastly, Assange is burning bridges wherever he goes, and he's probably not making that much money.
I'm calling bull on that. Or at least argument from the unprovable. Who knows what he makes or how he lives. I doubt he is a millionaire from all this but he flies around the world a lot.
He lives the life of an international man of mystery
Everything we know and read (mostly from the main himself) paints a picture of a guy living in this in his head. The reality is probably quite different :)
Im not calling Assange bad or anything; but I think he has too strong beliefs to head up such an important movement. He's a good poster boy - but I actually feel his attitude can harm the movement - because the mainstream media have a tough time taking him seriously.
"...because the mainstream media have a tough time taking him seriously."
Honestly, I can't think of anyone with less moral authority than the (bulk of the) mainstream media. If WikiLeaks could simply bypass the MSM, we'd all be better off.
I don't know if Assange helps the movement more than he hinders it, but at least he has done more for the cause of monitoring centers of power than the MSM in the last 40 years, since Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers. If he's using the donations to live the good life, I really don't care. Donations are voluntary, unlike the taxes that fund the Iraq War.
Honestly, I can't think of anyone with less moral authority than the (bulk of the) mainstream media.
Sadly that is how you contact most people. Besides - one of the main issues with modern media is bias and vitriol, shouldn't Wikileaks rise above that?
If he's using the donations to live the good life, I really don't care. Donations are voluntary, unlike the taxes that fund the Iraq War.
And that, I think, says it all. My principles are not so easily bent (I'm not convinced he is misappropriating funds btw). I gave them a donation to fund the support of whistleblowers - not to fund a lavish lifestyle. If he is doing that then I am very pissed off :)
But I am not sure how easily it can be argued that bias/agenda could be good things for a whistleblower site. Or that it could compromise their aims.
On the other hand there are copious reasons why they would be good things (not least reputation).