EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
WikiLeaks vs Facebook? No Match
TIME Magazine readers chose Julian Assange as Person of the Year. Hands down. But Time's editors preferred to go with the safer choice: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The loser in this contest is Time Magazine. Hands down.
Just think about it. Facebook has been around for years now. It's a fabulous social networking tool, but there is nothing it accomplished in 2010 that wasn't accomplished in 2009. In the swirling pace of the tech world, Facebook is old news.
In contrast, WikiLeaks has, in the course of just a few months, turned the world of U.S. policy and foreign relations upside down--or better yet, inside out. In recognizing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as Person of the Year runner up, Time writer Barton Gellman acknowledged that, "WikiLeaks became a revolutionary force, wresting secrets into the public domain on a scale without precedent. Assange and company wrought deep disruptions in the marketplace of state power, much as tech-savvy insurgents before them had disrupted markets in music, film and publishing. The currency of information, scattered to the four corners of the globe, is roiling not only U.S. foreign relations but also the alliances and internal politics of other nations." Gellman went on to make the grandiose claim that "WikiLeaks has established itself, too, as a competitor to news media and intelligence agencies."
Time editors might have felt U.S. government pressure to jump over the obvious man of the year, Julian Assange. But we, the people, must thank Assange for giving us troves of secret information that can help us understand the inner workings of our government. We see our soldiers shooting down innocent Iraqis with no accountability; we see our Afghan "ally" squirreling $52 million in cash out of the country; we see our diplomats being told to spy on UN staff; we see our ambassador in Honduras acknowledging an illegal coup that our government ends up supporting; we see the Obama administration browbeating countries to water down a climate accord. The revelations go on and on. For this, WikiLeaks and Assange are rightfully the "People's Choice."
But let us not forget that the source of most of these documents is suspected to be Private Bradley Manning, who is sitting in a prison in Quantico, VA, in solitary confinement. While Julian Assange is in the whirlwind of the public eye, let's remember the person who really put his career and his freedom on the line. If you want to send thanks and some holiday cheer to Bradley Manning, you can write to him (a postcard is best) at:
Bradley Manning
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave #41
Oakland CA 94610
On Thursday, peace activists will take thousands of petitions to the Justice Department asking that they go after the real criminals--the war criminals--and not Julian Assange. Make sure your name is on the petition. http://bit.ly/e73apM
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
73 Comments so far
Show All"Time Magazine"? What's that?
...Maybe if we ignore "Time Magazine", it will go away. It's not needed.
Time has it very, very wrong. Assange is not seeking so much to disempower governments, but to empower the people who are the rightful owners of those governments. Isn't that what the "power of the press" is supposed to be about?
With a few exceptions, Facebook, on the other hand, generally does not "empower" anything meaningful. Yes, it lets us reinvent ourselves, publicly market our lives, post silly, embarassing pictures of ourselves, and play games that lets us pretend we are farmers and bakery owners, bragging about how many chickens and rows of corn we have on our pretend farms and what we cooked up that day in our fake bakeries. It's pure fantasy and fiction, just another escapist distraction. In the meantime,the corporate world and their government puppets seize anything of real value while we are otherwise occupied with the likes of Facebook.
A better name for it would be "Fakebook."
Good post.
Yours is as well. I have a number of friends always pressing me to "join in on the fun" on Facebook. Time Magazine has rendered itself irrelevent with their "choice".
Pretend chickens and corn. It all seems rather sick to me. FAKEbook, indeed; NOT!
Maybe next year they should just make up the list using the same name ten times. WikiLeaks exposes more than just the leaks.
"... It is clear that the public vote is essentially meaningless..."
Sadly, that statement appears to be true and applicable to other types of voting as well.
And, regarding Private Manning, you are 100% correct. Without his audacious role in the WikiLeaks scenario, we would not have the evidence of the usa's treacherous chicanery exposed for everyone to see, and Julian Assauge would not be in any trouble today.
While Julian Assauge is a hero as well, he will likely be released from his british confinement sooner or later. Poor Bradley Manning is likely "disappeared" for all time.
TIME should have went with Lady Gaga; they are now the National Enquirer of "news" magazines.
You got it. It was appropriate that Assange was runner-up, but only because the winner should have been Bradley Manning.
When commentators parrot " corrupt" Karzai they are inferring that other politicians who are just as much if not more corrupt are less or not corrupt at all.
Karzai has not invaded any nations, he wishes to make peace with the Taliban ( probably the main reason he has the "corrupt" appellation), and he attempts to protect his citizens.
Compared to politicians ( such as most in USA) who invade other nations, are just as corrupt with their monies and are adverse to Peace, he is not very corrupt.
"corrupt" Karzai cliche originates from the same corrupt source as "lawless" tribal areas.
How is it so many petty USA puppet dictators are never labeled corrupt even when they misuse funds plus slaughter their populations wholesale?
Corruption refers not only to misuse of funds but also to rotten souls.
It's shameful that Manning is being held in isolation with only 1 hr out every day. He's under video monitoring, and is not allowed to exercise in his cell. He has not been convicted of anything. He is being held in conditions usually used for violent inmates who are a threat to other ones.
His living situation has been described as a form of torture.
Prof:
Great post! I would only add: "and that's the way it is."
Which is why we have to change things.
Visiting Professor -- Thank you for the wonderful post. Intelligent, analytical, informative.
I vote Time Magazine compost of the year.
I would never poison my compost with that toxic crap!
I vote for the trees: may they not be wasted on producing such a poor excuse for a news magazine.
Medea B...right again!
The fools at TIME have always been LATE getting the true story published.
TIME is completely irrelevant as a news source
I share Medea Benjamin's perspective on the sorting of wheat from chaff where the real importance of Wikileaks' disclosures are concerned.
The Apache helicopter machine gun assault footage from occupied Iraq, the $52 million dollars diverted from Kabul, the directive for US diplomats to spy on UN staff, and the Obama administration's flip floping on the illegal coup in Honduras and climate change - these are significant, real world public policy issues far more important than temporarily awkward gossip about what the secret cables show the yanks really feel about Germany's Angela Merkel's leadership style or Khadafi's latest blonde Ukranian squeeze.
The mainstream US media spin, trying to make lemonade out of lemons, focused on the fragmentary quasi-evidence that Iran and North Korea maybe, perhaps, possibly might clandestinely be in cahoots on nuclear missle technology that could, some day, potentially endanger western Europe if the missles and bombs ever became real. It was Axis of Evil revisited, for at least one short news cycle. For my money however, the most damning single revelation in the treasure trove that Wikileaks has dumped into public domain remains the US strafing of the Iraqi civilians on a street corner, with the follow up strafing of a rescue vehicle which arrived at the scene of the carnage and attempted to evacuate a writhing, greviously wounded man.
No question about the authenticity of the leaked video/audio tape.
No question that what was captured for posterity and disseminated world wide by Wikileaks on UTube was a war crime under international law.
And also no question that it was also standard operating procedure, under the prevailing, official rules of engagement for US occupation forces in Iraq, at the time this ghastly episode transpired.
The incident was thoroughly investigated by the Pentagon chain of command. Everything was determined, certified, and decreed to have been done correctly, strictly by the book. Fog of war. Yadda-yadda-yadda, dead child passengers in vehicle too.
I wonder if Reuters, whose two-man reporting crew were among the casualties in that hi tech 50 calibre machine gun assault outburst, shares the editorial judgment of Time magazine about what is most newsworthy, and who best merits its Person of the Year award.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill, I agree with you that the most important leak is the video of the Apache attacking the camera man and related civilians. That is serious. However what has that done? What ally has left us? What prosecutions have begun?
As for the other "game changing leaks"....
Seriously? Corruption and diverted funds in Afghanistan? We didn't know that? It was reported for years that a huge percentage of aid had simply disappeared. Climate change? You honestly didn't know that Obama had coerced small nations to support the Copenhagen Accords? Aren't foreign aid and development funds always a carrot to get other nations to do what we want? Was it ever simply some duty we had? The Honduras coup? Does anyone in the US know where Honduras is now that didn't before?
What we who know what is going on see as outrages are simply news as usual for 99% of the country if they know about it at all.
Point is that the award is for the most impactful person of the year and to most Americans, that is not Julian Assange for all that he has done. I think the editors of Time actually felt that Facebook and Zuckerberg have actually had a larger impact on Americans than Assange. I personally think so too...
That is not to say that Assange is not important in history or in principle, but practically, Facebook beats Wikileaks. Sad but true.
"Point is that the award is for the most impactful person of the year and to most Americans, that is not Julian Assange for all that he has done."
Please explain exactly how you know this statement to be true. The only plebiscite taken on the question was the one done for Time's readers and its outcome clearly disproves your claim.
You're entitled to your opinion about the comparative influence of Wikileaks and Facebook. Your opinion, however, tells us more about the limitations of your worldview than about the justification for Time's choice.
q
Thank you quickstepper that Shady character ( I mean the Shady John) raises my hackles so much I can hardly reply.
Glenn- I think that JohnShade is saying that Facebook & Co get the top title from Time because of the massive societal infiltration that they have achieved while Wikileaks' Julian Assauge has not been able to penetrate the average (and below average) American conscience. And that is sad but true. The majority of the schmucks I encounter who are even able to recognize the Assauge name in the course of any discussion swear that he is Satan incarnate and should be killed for "endangering Amurikkkan lives" - they prattle on with all of the doublespeak lies that they get from the criminals in charge of the US via the M$M.
That said, I don't believe that JohnShade's comment has any other relevency to the concerns that most people who visit this site would want to discuss. He is just being a voice for Time Inc. and is truly "off topic".
Thanks for the name differentiation as well!
Fear not, we all know the real Slim Shady! ;-)
"The mainstream US media spin, trying to make lemonade out of lemons..."
Nah- The MSM US media is only about making shit-ade out of shit.
Little bit of irony here wouldn't you say. The qualifications for this once 'highly prestigious' recognition was 'who did what to influence the world' during the year. That includes Hitler in 1938, Stalin in 1939&1942 and the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, where time started the trend of such characters NOT being time's favorite of a year. But it was and is ok for w to be and actually nixon, bush sr., clinton, little w in 2000&2004 for his fraudulent election wins, o and even bozo kenneth starr who spent more than $50,000,000.00 trying to convict and impeach his partner in crime clinton. So it didn't have to be only those who do good, IT WAS whose influence was most notable.
But with this new way of choosing the person, I would say that Julian Assange is a great and unique non-choice for his part in keeping real investigative journalism alive; especially since the founder of facebook's accomplishments are purely of a highly distractive nature using a highly redundant technology. Really, what has that accomplished besides being able to text, chat or email one's social friends. It certainly keeps those hooked on fb attention away from what is really going on in this country and world.
Makes me gag to go to a doctors appointment and the only tabloid available it time magazine. Probably won't be long before that is the only tabloid on the racks, but by then it will have morphed a bit into 'time inquirer' for 'those inquiring mines who just gots to know'. Published by the Ministry of Truth.
Not wanting to spoil your adoration of your new guru, but the Wikileaks crowd are what all the geeks are: Apolitical attention-seekers.
I salute any revelation of cover-ups any time, and I salute their having revealed some of those, but just going for democracies is weak in itself.
Revealing internal cables of US embassies was politically inane (unless they had at the same time revealed the secret diplomatic cables of a bunch of other countries - who don't allow any downloads of their cables, BTW, I checked that!).
The unintended consequence of the cables was for us Europeans that American diplomats are mostly spot-on in their appraisals of their host countries, far more than official American foreign policy would have suggested, and that there are fewer conspiracies than I would have thought.
But to single out a democracy and reveal its private conversations while of course not providing the same from China or Russia or Israel or tons of others, just to get famous among their uneducated religious crowd (=geeks), that just showed how politically inane that crowd really is.
Wikileaks could have been a great thing. The megalomania of Assange who BTW seems to treat women like inflatables (thank you, Sweden!) might unfortunately kill an honest quest for truth.
Guess what, the U.S. is by far the world's dominant military superpower, the headquarters of global corporate capitalism, and the purveyor of most of the world's weapons of mass destruction. It is arguably the world's largest terrorist organization and instigator of many wars and attendant atrocities and collateral damage around the world for 60 years. It is the most in need of, and deserving of having its dirty laundry aired.
hamster December 15th, 2010 6:58 pm -- I'm with you on this. But we must remember that countries whose secrets WikiLeaks hasn't been able to reveal aren't thereby absolved of guilt for their wrongdoing.
"The megalomania of Assange who BTW seems to treat women like inflatables (thank you, Sweden!) might unfortunately kill an honest quest for truth."
Clear and incontestable evidence that the author of the above statement is insane.
Not necessarily. We all need to separate Assange the figure from the man. As a hero for starting and growing Wikileaks, he should be honored. As a man he has a record of not being really nice to women. While the charges in Sweden are silly, I don't think they are trumped up. I think that he and the women need to have a day in court and then that is that. Maybe even Sweden can look at their laws now that there is a spot light on them.
This can end well and while following the law.
As for American prosecution? Good luck. The most you can possible think he might even be close to doing is publishing stolen documents and that may not be illegal.
Your post expresses an unconscious confusion, perhaps you are unaware of it?
After condemning Assange for a "record" of "not being really nice to women" (huh,syntax much?) you call the charges silly and defend his right to a day in court. Why, as you have already condemned him?
By the by, not being "really nice to women" may be wrong but it ain't no felony. Did you mean all women? Only some women? His Mother? Sister? CIA plants who happen to be distaff? What freaking record?
I am still amazed at how much misinformation spews from people here...
B Manning ought to be Person of the Year!!!!!!!!! if he is the one...shame on our government not giving him proper legal rights. And he's a soldier???!!! What does that tell YOU about the US of Assholes?
Frankly I have enough trouble understanding many folks who post here.
I ,too, believe Bradley Manning to be a good citizen and a true patriot, but remember he is only one of hundreds being denied their rights by our government. I would only note that your US of A comment should be confined to our government and its actions and should not condemn the entire population. Folks are struggling, apolitical non involvement is rampant, the lies abound and I ,for one, refuse to give up the hope that there will be a tipping point when the true character of our citizenry will manifest itself.
I read coverage of the police report the women filed. Here are their admissions:
1. after he spent the night and had sex with the first one, she threw a party in his honor. I've never heard of a woman doing that for her rapist!
2. His mistake was taking a second woman to the party. She had basically stalked her way into his life and bragged in text msgs to friends about what was going on.
3. She invited him to spend the night at her apartment. They had sex at night, and when they woke up in the morning. She cooked him breakfast. I've never heard of a woman doing that for her rapist!
4. These two women crossed paths and ended up sharing notes. Each was offended for him not making her his one and only. They agreed to turn him in under the really weird, creepy law of not using a condom during sex. Oops - it wasn't even that with the first one. He used a condom, and it broke.
As a woman with great concern about violence against my peers, this disgusts me. These women need to grow up and realize if they jump into bed with a man the first time they meet they will never be his "one and only." They treated themselves as inflatable sex dolls.
These charges also diminish the damage that is truly done to so many women. Do you realize a woman is beaten every 8 seconds in this country? To put them in the same category as an easy woman who chases a man for sex is just bull.
One further note:
The two women in question are friends. Both appeared together at Assange press conferences and functions. One of them is known to be associated with a CIA fronted group.
You obviously know nothing about Wikileaks.
They only can publish what is leaked to them by the anonymous contributors to their site. And, in fact, Wikileaks first big scoop had nothing to do with the US, it was was documents showing the corruption in Kaupthing Bank if Iceland - which led to Iceland's reform of their banking syatem, plus laws protecting leakers of corporate and government malfeasance.
Wikileaks will be happy to publish the diplomatic cables of China, Russia, Germany, Venezuela, etc. if someone dumps the documents on their site. But as others have already commented, the sheer power that the US wields makes the USAn's diplomatic cables far more significant than any other state.
Were you in bed with Assange? His hostess cum USA agents were very friendly with him post coitus ( as in their continued pleasant relations in cell phone conversations and the morning after ritual).
You demand he provide cables from other nations that are not downloadable, kinda "Catch 22" is it not?
Geeks are uneducated? Maybe probably not but they sure are intelligent.
Religous? Huh?
Apolitical ? Anonymous is Apolitical?
You need a refresher course at the pys-ops school.
And Assange is an equal oppurtunity leaker, as in Iceland, Kenya and Scientology.
Amen. Spot on, Medea. And I am grateful to you for mentioning, so prominently, the alleged source of the significant leaks, Private Bradley Manning, as co-hero with Wikileaks. I am running out right now to get a holiday card to send him. Namaste to all who are rising up.
Leaving aside the conviction that Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" is self-important, pseudo-prestigious puffery and pretentious claptrap in the first place, Assange is clearly a worthier recipient that this Zoidberg geek or whatever his name is.
Maybe Time magazine should change its name to: OUT OF TIME OR BEHIND THE TIMES! Because it is nothing but a corporate rag.Like it has been repeated many times, ( pun intended ) : DURING TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT TELLING THE TRUTH BECOMES A REVOLUTIONARY ACT. The prescient George Orwell must have anticipated Wikileaks!
"Zuckerberg enables individuals to voluntarily share information with the idea of empowering them."--TIME you are kidding right? FACEBOOK is making it easier for bosses and other "authority" figures to punish posters. And there is so much dribble that passes for "conversation" on it that I fail to see how this is "empowering".
Mark Zuckerberg and the venture capitalists behind Facebook are Neo-Cons.
Why anyone would ever volunteer their personal information to a corporation that has the CIA as investors via In-Q-Tel is beyond me.
So you have to ask yourself, why are you voluntarily giving the CIA your personal information??
Read the Guardian's investigative report on Facebook:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
Good article by Benjamin, except he could have put a little more thought and research into the article to make a better case. I believe Assange should clearly be the Person of the Year. Some thoughts:
- Agree with Benjamin that there is nothing special about this year over 2009 or even 2008 to qualify Zuckerberg as the Person of the Year. Facebook was launched in 2004 and in Jan 2009, Compete.com ranked it the number one social network site (over MySpace at the time). In addition, there are other social networking tools like Twitter and Linkedin.com.
- Zuckerberg founded Facebook with his college roommates and is CEO but today he is just one of many people (more than 1,000 employees) in the Facebook company that make Facebook what it is. Nevertheless, I give him credit for leading Facebook, the company, to where it is today.
- I made this comment on another article, but it sure seems convenient for Facebook the movie to come out right before him being chosen Person of the Year. Without the movie, most of America would not have any idea who he is.
- Time's motives are suspicious. Remember in Aug 2010, when there was political discussion about pulling out of Afghanistan, Time Magazine ran an edition with a front page that had a woman with her nose cut off and asked "What Happens if we Leave Afghanistan?". Well, we are still in Afghanistan and life sucks for the Afghans.
- Regarding Assange, the argument that his leaks hasn't changed the typical American or made them oppose the US policy is too narrow-minded. The leaks have affected the way people think about our actions in war and our diplomacy. It has made people uncomfortable which is the first step to action. Nobody can expect a revolution from couch potatoes in just one day. The leaks have caused the US government (some others) and politicians to react in a way contrary to the the freedom rhetoric they make. The leaks have led Corporations to react and suppress 1st amendment rights. And the leaks have more opened the eyes of the rest of the world (who is looking) to who we are as a nation. Finally, the leaks are permanent. The cat is out of the bag and have left politicians and M$M, including Time, to scramble to not allow the substance of the leaks be a topic of discussion.
Time, the weekly corporate propaganda magazine. This magazine has been a cheerleader for the corporate/military establishment at least since the middle 1960s. Time cheerleaded for the US war on Vietnam for years. I remember well, as an anti-war activist back then, being outraged at Time's lies and smears... Guess that they haven't changed much in the last 45 years...
It was Time owner Henry Luce who coined the term American Century back in 1940 in a special edition of Life. The essay can be found online. It was refuted by the emminent historian Charles Beard in his very unique book The Republic, which is as important today as it was when published in 1943, first serially in Life!
Few deaths are graceful. I suppose it is inevitable that TIME should shoot itself in the other foot.
I suppose the great tradition of Western journalism was pretty tenuous at its best, and I suppose we all know by now that as far as print-and-advertise media go, that best has gone gone gone.
We will have to do something with this Net thing. TIME and The Times are not coming back.
How do you say "broken condom" in Swedish?
Rape.
Two things to add here: Apparently, Medea doesn't get out very often as she overlooked the obvious, the movie tie-in. That's what's different about the Zuckerberg choice in 2010.
The other thing is, December 17 is Bradley Manning's birthday. So here's my early greetings on that.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY BRADLEY! (and thanks for your courage.)
I look in on my Facebook page maybe once a week. It's a fun idea, but also silly and, as Betty White said, a big waste of time. I don't see how it compares to Wikileaks at all. Wikileaks is serious and Facebook is silly.
As for Time Magazine, I see back issues of it in my periodontist's waiting room. I haven't looked at one in years. I'm always surprised to see that it hasn't gone the way of Collier's and The Saturday Evening Post.
I want Life Magazine back. If they were still printing photo essays like they did during the Vietnam fiasco they'd be in jail with Julian.
No surprise, "TIME Magazine" is a Neocon propaganda organ.
Time's editors may not be as stupid as they appear. If they had chosen Assange, more people would be talking about Assange. Now more people are talking about Time. Name recognition is the name of the brand game.
"Time editors might have felt U.S. government pressure"
Time editors felt absolutely no pressure from the US government.
But Time editors felt massive pressure from the usual corner: The elites.
The author of this article joins all th rest in obscuring the fact of fundamental relevance: The oppressors of people and planet are elites.
E-L-I-T-E-S
It is the ELITES who fuel global warming, hijack the government, pressure the media, and all the rest of the skulduggery.
Get a clue, help solve the problem.
Maybe Julian will have to wait until they make a movie about him.
(So, who gets to play the lead?)