Highly suspicious Wikileaks bashing

Linked here is an article from Wired. It amazes me. Has the world become so dumbed down that they fail to see what this simplistic article is getting at? Would the average reader come away and think, "Yeah, Wikileaks IS terrible". I hope not I really do.

Article here

Some observations...

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair

The title sets the scene, the whole world is watching Wikileaks fall down. I beg to differ, half the world doesn't know about it and the ones that do appreciate the information it gives to us.

Despite a surge in mostly laudatory media portraying Wikileaks as a fearless, unstoppable outlet for documents that embarrass corporations and overbearing governments,...

The reason the reporting about Wikileaks is 'laudatory' is because the site is worthy of praise, this doesn't suggest a bias on reports about the site, it suggests the site is down right brilliant.

... the site has published only 12 documents since the beginning of the year, the last one four months ago.

Sorry, this is terrible. There is no target set by people on how many confidential documents should be produced by a site like Wikileaks. Are they underperforming because they have only published 12 documents? What does the author of the article measure this against?

And on June 12, Wikileaks’ secure submission page stopped working after the site failed to renew its SSL certificate, a basic web protection that costs less than $30 a year and takes only hours to set up.

Yes and with no explanaition or even speculation as to why this negatively leading statement is worth nothing.

The site’s donation page remains reliably available. Wikileaks’ head Julian Assange declined to comment.

Yes but why is this a point? The donation page is open and the submission page is down, are the two on the same system? Are they linked? Assange declined to comment... How is this negative? He is probably aware of the slant of the author.

Rant over. Wikileaks, I support you and I for one can see past this childish attempt at a negatively slanted article.

Here here!! I totally agree with you. This is obviously some attempt at a smear campaign. If the writer of the article wants wiki leaks to release more documents quicker I suggest he bring something to the table. Otherwise, info comes as it does. That, to me, is just common sense. And as far as their security for the site goes, anyone who was following their posts and the media knows that they were essentially under attack by tptb. I'm sure governments have plenty of people who are capable of disrupting their security measures. I think anyone with half a brain will see this is just propaganda meant to slander wiki leaks, and nothing more. Absolute rubbish to his article, I do say. Good on ya OP. S+F

Its sickening that they slant Wikileaks in such a derogatory manor.
Agents of disinformation
This is the same scientific community that thinks theese:
weburbanist.com...

.... Are natural rock formations.

GET A GRIP

i dont think that rock formations could be more off topic, really how can you add that to this thread to back up your statements, that is what i find crazy.

I think wired are full of crap these days. They have an agenda...it's the same people who tell us the moon landings were real

[edit on 2-7-2010 by MR BOB]

Originally posted by MR BOB
i dont think that rock formations could be more off topic, really how can you add that to this thread to back up your statements, that is what i find crazy.

I think wired are full of crap these days.

Well it doesnt really matter at all your just being pedantic for no good reason, Why do you feel the need to bash other members?

I added my two cents If you dont like well you dont like but Im totally with the OP and seem you are to so unless your some disinfo agent... whats your problem?

Click here for more information.


aaaand derailed. sorry op.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by MR BOB]

well ... the US propaganda to try to discredit wikileaks began weeks ago ... so, nothing knew!!

They will try to discredit Wikileaks and Assange just before they attempt to take him prisoner. That way, people are less likely to riot when he ends up dead.

I normally quite enjoy Wired, more for the tech side of things.

If you would all care to direct your irritation towards Ryan Singel the author of the piece. He appears to be primarily concerned with privacy issues and is essentially a one trick pony. Obviously he feels the Governments right to privacy should be respected.

What a 'weird' article, all wikileaks does is present you with information, no spin, no statement saying 'this is the truth.' They provide us with the info and we come to our own conclusions. As it should be. It's not like a newspaper which usually has it's own side of the political spectrum.

Wired is a heavily biased mouth piece for establishment party line bull#. Quite a shiney website for checking on whatever new gadgets and such are out, but there journalism is pretty sub par.

I agree, it just seems to be an advertisement for your newest gadgets,

i think it is just running as that at the moment, companys send in there gadgets, along with a $500 check to get a positive review.

Just like Google news when you click sci/tech section, its all about new phones. nothing decent in it.
[edit on 2-7-2010 by MR BOB]

Wired also broke the story, and showed the picture, and full name of the U.S. army intelligence analyst who supplied wikileaks with thousands of classified documents, and videos.

I think they set him up, with that "hacker" who was really someone employed by wired. I reckon any smart person would give sell the info to a publication with much more money to offer. like the New York times (would they buy that? i don't know)

I though there was something very fishy about that article. something odd going on with wired.


[edit on 2-7-2010 by MR BOB]

Originally posted by GW8UK

Originally posted by MR BOB
i dont think that rock formations could be more off topic, really how can you add that to this thread to back up your statements, that is what i find crazy.

I think wired are full of crap these days.

Well it doesnt really matter at all your just being pedantic for no good reason, Why do you feel the need to bash other members?

I added my two cents If you dont like well you dont like but Im totally with the OP and seem you are to so unless your some disinfo agent... whats your problem?

Relax a bit, you don't need to cry disinformation when someone points out you posted something offtopic.
Ontopic: I can sort of see the guys point, I would really love something new from wikileaks right about now, especially with those cables they were supposed to have received.

Do you know, if even some of that article is correct regarding the absence of the security features, I would suspect that Wikileaks either has knowledge that any of those those measures can be 'backdoored' at will by those with the power....... Either that or it's a case of the paranoia.

Or maybe they have their hands full. - Or maybe, one thing you can never rule out, is that it was a front all along and has served it's purpose... A nice big list of whistle blowers to hang.

I was watching Fox and Megyn Kelly brought up Julian Assange and Wikileaks. This was only last week or just past that.

She said that if Assange spent more time fixing his hair he would do better in this world. I literally was floored.

I am quite certain Julian reads ATS, who wouldn't; and I am quite certain Fox News cannot keep up with all the distractions they must pretend to embrace. So to you Julian, Thank you! Megyn, miss hair, you can act like you want justice in this world but you are owned! So sad.

So yes, I realized not too long ago that the Media will walk down this road to discredit Wikileaks.

To be honest I think the reduction of exposed documents only tells us that Assange is smarter than they think he is and he will not play into their game. I also think that he is considering the ramifications of the Military having a 'fallguy' for their inadequacies. Maybe now that McCrystal is out he might shed some light by contacting Julian! LOL

How would we respond if we knew the Truth and the Truth meant that every American Taxpayer has been funding the most despicable people in the most despicable means, and that the end result will be our own undoing. I am not sure how I would tell people other than slowly and with care. Evil does the most horrific acts when their exposure is eminent.

reply to post by Greensage


"She said that if Assange spent more time fixing his hair he would do better in this world..."

Hah. That's quite a tell. Megyn Kelly gets to play luscious blonde Manhattanite while Assange runs around the world in Ikea sweaters, unkempt, playing open-source spy.

They draw their livelihood from the same source...

You do know Wiki is a group of individuals like us here on ATS. Meaning they are able to voice their own opinions on anything they want. Even in the definitions areas. As for Wikileaks, same thing.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SneakAPeek]

Originally posted by Greensage
I was watching Fox and Megyn Kelly brought up Julian Assange and Wikileaks. This was only last week or just past that.

She said that if Assange spent more time fixing his hair he would do better in this world. I literally was floored.

Lol that's low... Focus shifting. Cover the article about WikiLeaks by reporting about Assange's controversial hair style. That's the best they could come up with at the time, man's hair.

Feel free to let the author of the article know what we the people think of this terrible attempt to discredit wikileaks:


admin edit: Per our TAC, you will not put personal information (your own or other people's) in public posts.


I know I did.

I'm surprised that Ryan Singel posted such a topic considering the side he usually takes.

His previous work:
www.illuminati-news.com...



[edit on 2-7-2010 by The_Zomar]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by Springer]