New Wikileaks to Old Channels

Fascinating - 3 Old Media Newspapers are the medium of choice for Afghanistan war wikileaks:

The huge cache of classified papers - described as one of the biggest leaks in US military history - was given to the New York Times, the Guardian and the German news magazine, Der Spiegel.

What is most interesting is why Wikileaks - a Web 2.0 User Generated Content site if there ever was one - chose Mainstream media as its organ of publication and dissemination rather than just getting it out there on the Web. If there is one thing this proves, it is that the role of the Olde Media is far from redundant. The deep throating may now be very 2.0, but the reporting is an interesting combination of Old Hacks drinking from New bottles.

(Update - there is a rather good debate going on in The Atlantic on what this all implies for Journalism)

As to the actual incidents themselves, there will no doubt be a lot of hand wringing from the self-declared sensitive types, but the more prosaic truth about these facts is that this sort of thing was ever thus (Allied exploits in WW2 do not make them out as angels at all, and just ask the average British tankie about US "friendly fire" in the Gulf Wars), its just its all come out in the open this time (A process that started in the Crimea, by the way).

And, no doubt Western generals everywhere will be worrying that they have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs while the enemy have no such limitations. But the more prosaic truth about the leaks is that this sort of leaking will become more common, and that governments and corporates everyhere will now redouble efforts to stop it.

That the best way to prevent corruption is to shine a light into the dark areas is very true, but it is also true that some areas ned to stay dark for the safety of those fighting on "our side". What will be interesting is to see how a "new contract" is formed between States and their people over the next 10 years or so - States will know the stuff wll come out, most of its citizens will realise a State sometimes has to do what it needs to. Ditto with Corporate malfeasance (where the "have to do what we have to do" carries less weight, methinks).

If I were to make a guess, its that most citizens already knew that War is a gory business, that Afghanistan was going far less well than the Governments claimed and the media reported it as going (The mediarati are going into overdrive today, but where were the investigative media before this, one wonders....) and that much of this is news, but not New news. It merely adds detail to already provable hypotheses.

Anyways, the Grauniad's page explaining the data is over here, and here is the Excel spreadsheet (They couldn't put it on Google Docs as it can't handle files that size)

PS - I loved this comment on Slashdot - pretty much sums up my view of the whole sorry episode:

According to the CIA World Fact Book: [cia.gov]

Population: 29,121,286
GDP (Per capita:) $800 (2009 est.)

So now, expenditure over six years (Jan 2004 - Dec 2009) is $300,000,000,000.00 divided by six is around $50,000,000,000.00 per year

Per capita is $1,716.96 or more than double the GDP per capita of the country!

I would think that the US would get better resultsif the money was simply given to each inhabitant, the $800 they already make plus $1,700 from the US, would triple the GDP per capita, no small feat.

Just smile for the camera and show that you have not handled explosives or fired guns in the last week (paraffin test) and you get your weekly expenditure; you don't show up for a week then you lose the privilege, i.e. you knew you couldn't pàss the test.

Who said "You Can Rent an Afghan But Never Buy One"? It would rent the whole lot of them for a long time!