The empire hits back

At Liverpool University you can pick up copies of the "quality newspapers" for 40 pence and so, before going to Costa's for the morning coffee today, I decided to indulge myself and bought the 'Guardian' and the 'Independent'.

An article, which was entitled "What Wikileaks is really telling us" caught my eye and on reading it, we can soon deduce that  the author, a Stephen Glover, is not really interested in not telling us what Wikileaks is really telling us but rather he is intent in blasting us with the par for the course opinionated nonsense. "Wikileaks and its weird looking founder, Julian Assange, do not care about the British or any other national interests", we are told. Now, possibly because of a big ego, Mr Glover has his own picture accompanying the article and, while beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, talk about "weird looking"!

Of course, Mr Assange's looks are not what Stephen Glover is taking issue with. What, therefore, is the real reason behind the article? Is it the fact that the Wikileaks founder "does not care about British or any other national interests"? Well, there are those who would argue that that is no bad thing. Indeed, that it is a good thing and that it allows Mr Assange to concentrate on a more important issue. Namely, that of telling the truth. An important, very important, point, of course. Nevertheless, it is when the very opinionated, excruciatingly "normal" Mr Glover began to spout the same verbal diarrhea as we are hearing from the Pentagon and White House that we can really discern the real reason behind the article.

Mr Glover writes, "Mr Assange says that he wants to save lives, though it may be difficult to prove he ever has. It may turn out that he has been responsible for one or more deaths. He says he held thousands of documents back, but he cheerfully published information that could literally be lethal. No decent newspaper would do that." We might do well to analyse this pathetic excuse for journalism.

Firstly, Julian Assange has said that he has taken great care not to endanger anyone and that he had contacted the White House through an intermediary to ask the administration to review the documents before publication to ensure that no innocent people were identified. Apparently, there was no response from the administration. Furthermore, while the adminstration denies that any such contact took place, there is evidence to suggest that it did and that Mr Assange's version of what happened is right. Therefore, it would appear that it is Washington that is endangering lives and not the "cheerful" Wikileaks founder. Finally, what about Mr Glover's contention that "no decent newspaper would publish information that could prove lethal"?

Of course, these newspapers are acting decently when they publish facts, when they publish the truth. Unfortunately, they, along with Mr Glover's own newspaper, also publish a lot of nonsense. Nonsense, which has proved lethal and is continuing to prove lethal. Or is the author of this quite silly article really unaware of how the mass media has helped create a climate which permits the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children in an illegal, pointless, war. This is what Wikileaks is hoping to bring to light and it certainly comes as no surprise that the the manufactures of consent are already hitting back through "journalists" such as the weird looking, opinionated, Stephen Glover. What "Wikileaks is really telling us", Mr Glover, is quite simply that war crimes are being committed, that this is a war that cannot be won and that it is time for it to end.