Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Making Sense with Steve Leser/ Headlined now@
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Our top story this week is Whistleblowing, specifically the cases of Bradley Manning and Eric Snowden and the journalists who broke their stories, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange. Did those whistleblowers do the right thing? Did the journalists behave responsibly? Should they all have gone about things differently? This follows up on an appearance on RT I made this past week to discuss all of the above.
Then, Pope Francis gave an impromptu speech on the church’s position in regard to gay Catholics. It shocked some people but does it represent a change?
As always we will have our trademark hall of fame and shame for those politicians and prominent individuals who made great sense or shameful nonsense respectively.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/08/04/making-sense-with-steve-leser--whistleblowing-and-more
Then, Pope Francis gave an impromptu speech on the church’s position in regard to gay Catholics. It shocked some people but does it represent a change?
As always we will have our trademark hall of fame and shame for those politicians and prominent individuals who made great sense or shameful nonsense respectively.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/08/04/making-sense-with-steve-leser--whistleblowing-and-more
Excellent listening, as always good solid information.
Assange and Greenwald screwed their sources by not going through proper channels. Instead they
trickled out facts along with disinformation. That's not journalism it's sensationalism!
Thanks for the facts Steve. I have about 15 more minutes of listening, however this is outstanding!
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thanks~
I had read the first one, I think you posted it here.
The link to the second one did not work for me. However I was able to find it.
This I had not read, so thank you.
The report also mentions that the man peering around the side of the building (with what turned out to be a camera) appeared to be a sign of "hostile intent." Again, that happened after permission to engage had already been granted. Assange called that "retrospective justification."
When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after the permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group -- later identified by an army investigator as an AK-47 and an RPG -- and that they mistook two cameras with telephoto lenses as weapons as well. Assange said he does not accept that his comment makes that implication, that introductory text in the video clearly states, "Although some of the men appear to have been armed, the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed."
Who can say whether those in the Apache meant RPG when the crosshairs turned to two of the other men in the group -- not journalists -- and they said "he's got a weapon, too." Photographs suggest that it probably was a man with an RPG, and another with an AK-47 rifle. Still, the soldiers in the Apache reported, "Five to six individuals with AK-47s." That's what the permission to engage appears to have been based upon. RPG's were not specifically referred to by that point, but other "weapons" were. And so while Assange's statement is technically accurate, we think it leaves out critical context. And we rule it Half True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/
When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after the permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group -- later identified by an army investigator as an AK-47 and an RPG -- and that they mistook two cameras with telephoto lenses as weapons as well. Assange said he does not accept that his comment makes that implication, that introductory text in the video clearly states, "Although some of the men appear to have been armed, the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed."
Who can say whether those in the Apache meant RPG when the crosshairs turned to two of the other men in the group -- not journalists -- and they said "he's got a weapon, too." Photographs suggest that it probably was a man with an RPG, and another with an AK-47 rifle. Still, the soldiers in the Apache reported, "Five to six individuals with AK-47s." That's what the permission to engage appears to have been based upon. RPG's were not specifically referred to by that point, but other "weapons" were. And so while Assange's statement is technically accurate, we think it leaves out critical context. And we rule it Half True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/
From your Op
http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/politifact-rating-half-true-wikileaks.html
As you stated in your broadcast. Half truths and misinformation. That is not journalism. That is sensationalism.
Loved your broadcast. Sorry my OP didn't recieve more attention.
