Doug Lacombe is Getting it Right's very first Demagogue of the Week!

We love Doug Lacombe!

What two little words can do. Could be is what's at issue here. It's exactly those two words (and their variations, such as may be) that have been fundamental when deciding upon GIR's first "Demagogue! of the Week".

We have a nominee: it is Doug Lacombe for his article "Wikileaks lacks checks and balances"

About the nomination
Doug Lacombe uses a copy and paste trick (wonderful, no pain) for his amazing deed:

" . . . those who are tempted to publish classified information in the name of press freedoms should be aware that their naivete and their blind devotion to 'the public's right to know' could be rightly termed aiding and abetting the enemy by endangering the safety of Canadian soldiers abroad. A little forethought and a large dose of loyalty to our side of the war can literally mean the difference between life and death for our soldiers, and also Afghan civilians."

You see? Could be. Totally and absolutely useful. Suddenly Wikileaks is not only exposing war abuses, oh no, THEY ARE KILLING CANADIANS! Well, could be, anyways. No explanation of course HOW this information would "endanger the safety" of Canadian troops (that's too much detail to ask, I suppose), no, a simple "could kill Canadian troops" is all that is needed.

Congratulations!
Doug Lacombe, you've done a great job! It's perfect. With a simple sentence (that you didn't have to even write yourself) you have been nominated for demagogue of the week: you've effectively turned Wikileaks from a idealistic whistleblower organization into an Canadian troops killing war propaganda machine, and therefore you have been nominated "Demagogue! of the Week".

Well done!

Footnotes:
1) Some more craftsmanship from his article below:
- "Sadly Assange, a convicted Australian computer hacker according to the Los Angeles Times
                 (not bad, Doug, and again no pain to produce it, or was there?)
- The self-righteous "we know what's best" attitude that seems to characterize Assange's various public responses concerns me. Isn't that the very definition of a despot?
                (could well be the very definition, touche!)
2) Great title too! Of course Wikileaks has checks and balances, but there's no harm in adding a little lie here and there if you want to be nominated!

Related Article:
- Doug Lacombe: "Wikileaks lacks checks and balances"

Why Doug Lacombe may be a demagogue

In response to Doug Laccombe:
"Wikileaks lacks checks and balances"

http://communicatto.com/2010/07/31/wikileaks-lacks-checks-and-balances/

Original post below this response

Did you know that Wikileaks HAS a proper process in place to vet the incoming materials and an error free trackrecord of vetting out bogus submissions?

Just because you're not aware of the checks and balances Wikileaks uses to vet their sources doesn't mean they don't have policies to deal with vetting.

But whistleblowers need to be protected, and wikileaks does so in two ways:
1) By not revealing their sources (secretive by nature)
2) By assisting with legal funds to those that are accused of being the source

What's troublesome in your post is that you accuse Wikileaks of being too secretive about their own sources, a moral judgement, while not making the same kind of judgement about the use of informants (talk about secretive, and possible abuse) by the coalition forces.

Your hypocritic stand is further amplified by:
1) Calling Assange a despot; to what purpose may I ask?
2) The amount of articles you've written on the secretive nature of coalition forces warfare intelligence vetting as presented by the media, in particular now abuses have become apparent after the wikileaks;

In short, your article is nothing short of a "shoot the messenger" bias, and why, just because the vetting process isn't public?

Lest we forget, we all know who is responsible for the killings of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, and it wasn't wikileaks.

Wikileaks' record on harm done to innocent people is zero. If the US Army acts responsibly with their own sources (just like wikileaks does with theirs) then they would now do everything possible to protect their informants. But if we can learn anything from the Afghan War Leaks, then it is that US forces have no trouble killing innocent Afghans and then cover up the evidence.

But you knew all that right? That's why your post is so repulsive. Isn't such writing the work of a demagogue?


-------------------------------

Social media is increasingly becoming implicated in moments of crisis and significant world events. The 2009 Iranian election is a great example.


Thanks to a variety of technical manoeuvres, the Iranian government could not throttle the protesters' use of Twitter to report on those events. Where traditional media could not tread, the citizenry and Twitter stepped in.


This year's catastrophic earthquake in Haiti was another example where Twitter reporting reigned supreme.


Depth of reporting was improved at this year's G20 protests in Toronto by tweets from many, including TV Ontario's Steve Paikin (@spaikin on Twitter).


The common thread is people voluntarily reporting what they see. In other words, they choose to share the information or events unfolding in front of them, even as others attempt to deny them a voice. This is good.


A whole new genre of social reporting, if it can be called that, came to the fore this week. Website WikiLeaks.org dumped classified documents about the war in Afghanistan onto the web and into the hands of three newspapers.


From Wikipedia: "WikiLeaks released to The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel over 92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan between 2004 and the end of 2009. The logs detail individual incidents including friendly fire and civilian casualties. The scale of leak was described by (WikiLeaks spokesperson) Julian Assange as comparable to that of the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s. On July 25, 2010, the logs were released to the public."


The Pentagon Papers, you may recall, were brought to the attention of the American public in 1971 via the New York Times, essentially demonstrating that the Johnson administration had lied to the public about Vietnam.


Trained, professional journalists and their editors reviewed the leaked materials and, with utmost care and due diligence, weighed issues of national security and the public's right to know.


WikiLeaks has no such filter, no checks and balances, or none we can see. It's just a raw data dump with spotty redaction for everyone to pore over and draw our own conclusions. Oh yes, and for the Taliban/al-Qaida gang to pore over and target informants for retribution. This is not good.


Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University in London, writes on CNN.com "The posting of 92,000 documents on WikiLeaks about the war in Afghanistan represents a triumph for what I like to call 'data journalism.' . . . However, the posting of the material on the Internet is not in itself an act of journalism. It is merely the beginning of a journalistic process, requiring analysis, context and, in this particular instance, a form of necessary censorship in order to protect individuals identified in the documents."


Necessary censorship. WikiLeaks didn't quite get the hang of redacting names or identifying circumstances in their haste to let the public know.


A recent editorial in the Calgary Herald put it succinctly: " . . . those who are tempted to publish classified information in the name of press freedoms should be aware that their naivete and their blind devotion to 'the public's right to know' could be rightly termed aiding and abetting the enemy by endangering the safety of Canadian soldiers abroad. A little forethought and a large dose of loyalty to our side of the war can literally mean the difference between life and death for our soldiers, and also Afghan civilians."


If WikiLeaks truly believed in the public's right to know, they would become transparent themselves. Doing so earns our trust in their intentions. Sadly Assange, a convicted Australian computer hacker according to the Los Angeles Times, and his horde of info-dumpers seem to feel they are exempt from such inconveniences.


The self-righteous "we know what's best" attitude that seems to characterize Assange's various public responses concerns me. Isn't that the very definition of a despot?


As usual, send me your feedback on Twitter at:


@dblacombe or via e-mail doug@communicatto.com.


Doug Lacombe is president of Calgary


social media agency communicatto.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix