NYU media prof Jay Rosen offers a number of observations well worth reading in regard to the classified Afghan War documents posted to Wikileaks this week, and how this new form of “journalism” changes the game in many different respects (and in very good ones, overall, I would argue).
One of his points in particular caught my eye, as it seems quite pertinent to the extraordinary allegations of former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds which we’ve been attempting to dig into and report on — with far too much exclusivity — for years here at The BRAD BLOG. Rosen’s observation, posted below, echoes the general notion I’ve come to, of late, in regard to her story, and the lack of media coverage of it. In short, it’s likely that the Sibel Edmonds story is simply too large for the media to handle — even those organizations which aren’t, themselves, directly implicated in her explosive allegations.
I’m on the road this week (and for the next many), so don’t have time at the moment to provide full background on the Edmonds story for those who don’t know of it yet, but we’ve got plenty here at The BRAD BLOG from our years of coverage if you’d like to poke around. Here’s a link to one of my recent Hustler articles on her, which offers the basics and includes some discussion of the “too big to bust” theory that Rosen seems to be articulating below.
His point here seems as germane in regard to the Edmonds story as it does to the massive leak of the classified Afghan War documents which he was writing about…
Last week, it was the Washington Post’s big series, Top Secret America, two years in the making. It reported on the massive security shadowland that has arisen since 09/11. The Post basically showed that there is no accountability, no knowledge at the center of what the system as a whole is doing, and too much “product†to make intelligent use of. We’re wasting billions upon billions of dollars on an intelligence system that does not work. It’s an explosive finding but the explosive reactions haven’t followed, not because the series didn’t do its job, but rather: the job of fixing what is broken would break the system responsible for such fixes.
The mental model on which most investigative journalism is based states that explosive revelations lead to public outcry; elites get the message and reform the system. But what if elites believe that reform is impossible because the problems are too big, the sacrifices too great, the public too distractible? What if cognitive dissonance has been insufficiently accounted for in our theories of how great journalism works… and often fails to work?
I don’t have the answer; I don’t even know if I have framed the right problem. But the comment bar is open, so help me out.
If my own first-hand, sometimes behind-the-scenes experience over the years in witnessing how the media have covered Edmonds’ allegations — or, more often, have entirely failed to cover them, even after legendary “Pentagon Papers” whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg declared on these very pages that her allegations were “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers” — I’d suggest Rosen is on to something in his observations above. (Ellsberg later elucidated on some of those thoughts with his own guest blog on the topic here at The BRAD BLOG, by the way.)
Some stories, it seems, are simply too big, too challenging for the media to handle. Too enormous for them to be able to wrap their brains and/or strained newsroom budgets around. Couple that with scandalous, criminal allegations that involve stolen nuclear secrets sold on the foreign black market, and top officials from both the D and R parties said involved in allowing it all via blackmail, bribery or for-profit — so neither party has an interest in investigating, so as to protect themselves — and you’ve got the perfect crime: Too big too bust, too many bad guys involved, and likely just too much for our mainstream corporate media to be able to unpack, even if they actually wanted to. Or, as Rosen writes, “a mess we cannot fix and therefore prefer to forget.”
Sounds like the Edmonds story in a nutshell to me.
What do we do about “too big to bust” media stories which get ignored and people are not held accountable? It seems to be that there is more corruption openly taking place and one has to either join it, fight it or ignore it. It seems to be that to have success one has to join the corruption even if one knows it’s wrong. One wants to fight it because one knows it’s wrong, but then one has mostly anger and bitterness in one’s life. One can choose another option, which is selfish, and drop out all together and not take any part and ignore these things. I keep looking for the best way overcome this feeling of helplessness that these type of issues give me and have yet to find a suitable means. Simply being upset about these things is not enough. I’ve been discussing this issue with people for years. If anyone has an answer please share it with me.
No answers. Just suggestions and thoughts.
Brad’s article and Jardon’s comment remind me of that Einstein quote-
The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.
The challenge therefore is to try to come up with new ways of thinking, talking about, and acting on the problems. And that’s been an optimistic note of these Wikileaks–that it’s a new way of dissminating info to confront the problems.
Suggestion for Jardon
The 100 Day Action Plan To Save The Planet–by William S. Becker
Agenda For A New Economy–by David C. Korten
Eaarth–by Bill McKibben
Threshold–by Thom Hartmann
These four books are brilliant and clear. They each lay out the situation we’re in unequivocally, but also contain possibilities/ideas for action and new direction.
Might be something helpful in one or all of them for you.
What is interesting is that this is news.
It was reported years ago that 1 million Iraqis were killed in the War of Terror by Project Censored and others.
Furthermore the evidence of controlled demolitions of WTC #7 on 9/11 is reason enough to SAY IT IS ALL BULLSHIT, and the war needs to stop.
And now the BBC is bringing up Pakistan and Osmama revelations as if we need to refocus the war, not stop it.
C,mon – lets really look at the big picture.
Why is Julian Assange annoyed by 9/11 questions and answers?
Brian pretty much nailed it.
Talk about the REAL “Too big to talk about story” is what really happened on 9/11.
Get those facts out there and everything else is tiny in comparison and easy to talk about.
The real facts about 9/11 is literally the keystone to getting past this cognitive dissonance.
David Lasagna @2
Man I love David Korten’s ideas…
Nice recs DLas. Korten also produced a gem in: “The Great Turning”
Wikileaks smells badly to me. Has for some time. All the markings of a “honeypot”
When I asked Sibel Edmonds about my suspicions concerning Wikileaks, including if they could be using info submitted to them to blackmail, she responded, “Camusrebel: good questions, indeed”.
The most recent “leaks” do not tell a coherent story. That is intentional, giving lamestream an excuse to not run with them. The end result will be ground troops in Pakistan. Hurray for Assange!
Another Ellsberg indeed. Danny boy is not the saint he is portrayed as. Many CIA connections and nefarious motives.
Who is the money behind WLeaks? Not Asshat.
I have heard Soros, Chinese disidents/hackers, Langley, Mossad, or some rogue elements of those last 2.
The way the lamestream(NYT, Gaurdian, and Der Speigel)were used to trumpet the grand opening of these “leaks” reeks of Mockingbird shit.
ok, so when i started typing my comment there were only 2. Yes i type slow and am easily distracted. I was going back and forth on wether to mention Assange’s dismissive Chomskyesque dispargement of the Truth Movement.
In respect of Brad’s lukewarm tolerance for discussion of “the mother lode”, i opted to leave it out of my critique. Then, lo and behold, Brian and Nunya come out swinging…….go team
This type of paralysis is very common in individual actions. People see the elephant and think they can’t eat the whole thing. Where they have to think they can eat it, one bite at a time over a long time period.
I think that unfortunately we have reached a critical mass or black hole – the system has gone into a run-away reaction. And the system does not have the control rods to stop it or get beyond the event horizon.
“But if the story is too big and crashes too many illusions, the exact opposite occurs” the 911 explanation if ever I’ve heard one .
And here is a copy of an email I received today.Look at this as an idea on how to fix things .
Dear friends,
A massive online campaign by the Avaaz community in Brazil has just won a stunning victory against corruption.
The “clean record” law was a bold proposal that banned any politician convicted of crimes like corruption and money laundering from running for office. With nearly 25% of the Congress under investigation for corruption, most said it would never pass. But after Avaaz launched the largest online campaign in Brazilian history, helping to build a petition of over 2 million signatures, 500,000 online actions, and tens of thousands of phone calls, we won!
Avaaz members fought corrupt congressmen daily as they tried every trick in the book to kill, delay, amend, and weaken the bill, and won the day every time. The bill passed Congress, and already over 330 candidates for office face disqualification!
One Brazilian member wrote to us when the law was passed, saying:
I have never been as proud of the Brazilian people as I am today! Congratulations to all that have signed. Today I feel like an actual citizen with political power. — Silvia
Our strategy in Brazil was simple: make a solution so popular and visible that it can’t be opposed, and be so vigilant that we can’t be ignored.
This victory shows what our community can do – at a national level, in developing nations, and on the awful problem of corruption. Anywhere in the world, we can build legislative proposals to clean up corruption in government, back them up with massive citizen support, and fight legislators who try to block them.
France’s Le Monde called our “impressive and unprecedented petition” campaign a “spectacular political and moral victory for civil society.” And while this victory may be a first, we can make it the precedent for global citizen action.
Amazingly, our entire Brazil campaign was made possible by just a couple of Avaaz team members, serving over 600,000 Avaaz members in Brazil. The power of the Avaaz model is that technology can enable a tiny team to help millions of people work together on the most pressing issues. It’s one of the most powerful ways a small donation can make a difference in the world.
5.6 million of us are reading this email — if a small fraction of us donate just $3 or $5 per week, or 50 cents per day, the entire Avaaz team will be funded and we can even expand our work on corruption and a range of issues. Click below to become a Sustainer of Avaaz and help take our anti-corruption campaigning global:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/ficha_limpa_reportback/?vl
We’ve seen the heart-wrenching movies about street kids and desperate urban poverty in Brazil, and we know that across the world political corruption preys on our communities and saps human potential. In Brazil, our community has helped turn the tide and usher in a new era of transparent, accountable politics. Let’s seize the opportunity and begin to fight corruption everywhere it’s needed today.
With hope,
Ricken, Luis, Graziela, David, Ben, Maria Paz, Benjamin and the entire Avaaz Team
SOURCES:
The Economist, “Cleaning up. A campaign against corruption”:
http://www.avaaz.org/economist_ficha_limpa
The Rio Times, “Anti-Corruption Law in Effect This Year”:
http://www.avaaz.org/rio_times_ficha_limpa
The story of Brazil’s Clean Record law has yet to be told widely in English language media. Here are a few stories in other languages that capture the campaign:
Le Monde, “Operation “clean sheet” in Brazil”: (French)
http://www.avaaz.org/le_monde_ficha_limpa
Correio Braziliense, “The arrival of 2.0 activists”: (Portuguese)
http://www.avaaz.org/correio_braziliense_2_0
I think the book, “Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press”, edited by Kristina Borjesson, is required reading here.
Don’t forget Mike Connell and the hacked
2004 Ohio election results story.
Sibel Edmonds appears to have been groomed for several years to be the key element in the establishment’s limited hangout regarding 9/11 when it becomes necessary (most likely when an overwhelming majority of Americans realize that the official myth of 9/11 holds less water than a colander.) She will then be ungagged and predictably say that “a few bad apples” within the Cheney administration “allowed” 9/11 to happen and that THAT was what the several-year cover up has been about, nothing more to see here folks, move along. She certainly isn’t going to come out with the actual truth and say “Yep, 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out to provide the pretext for the wars for energy resource dominance.”
So in other words, if someone is pinning their hopes for revealing the truth about 9/11 to Sibel Edmonds they are almost certainly putting their confidence in someone who is there to simply lead them down a blind alley.
All we have read and heard is how knowing the facts are bad. Well I can see how you can go to far in naming names. But the MSM is careful not to tell us about how bad Bush ran it. Or the facts about going to war. Why? Everybody else in the world who reads knows. But not Americans. Its like the CIA files put back together in Iran. They can not come into America, But the whole rest of the world can buy them. We are the only ones who can’t know what’s there. Now its this war.
Will Obama have Assange Killed?
Here’s what happened when I asked the White House a simple question or two…
White House Won’t Protect Afghan Sources, Won’t Rule Out Killing Assange
-Capturing Bin Laden Takes Back Seat to Fighting WikiLeaks
UPDATED 080410
Last Thursday I thought I’d ask the White House a simple question. Is it more important to capture Osama Bin Laden, or to detain and “question†(under the PATRIOT Act, we all know what that can mean.) Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
I thought this was a no brainer. How wrong, I suppose, I was. …
For the full post, see my blog Scribal Thrum, at dredeyedick.wordpress.com.
Short Link: http://bit.ly/cANjMw
Cheers,
Dave Manchester