Blog 4

The video “Inside WikiLeaks” informs us about the purpose of  WikiLeaks and the goal of Julian Assange. WikiLeaks exposes viewers to events, stories and videos that government tries to conceal. WikiLeaks posted up a video of American soldiers shooting Baghdad civilians which the Washington Post refused to publish. The purpose of news is to inform the public about ALL current events. Not to hide information from the public. There are always two sides to every story or every controversy and if a news network decides to publish a story they should present both sides to the public. But most news network fail to publish both sides of the story. Many people take the news for face value. They lack to think objectively and critically of the information presented to them. News broadcasters are able to pick and choose which stories to publish and are able to articulate the stories to match their biases. The goal of Julian Assange is to inform the public and make people aware of what government is not telling us. WikiLeaks exposes videos of stories that mainstream news fails to publish. But although WikiLeaks publishes stories otherwise not found anywhere else, that doesn’t mean we should trust them as a good source. We should not take them for face value either and also think critically about the information provided. With all the information provided, at the end of the day we should use our best judgment in regards to the “news”.

The video “Social Networks, Social Revolution” by Empire, Al Jazeera English is a good example of government secrecy and emphasizes the power of the internet. The video shows us the use of mass media effect on the revolution and governments attempt to shut it down. The internet has become a very powerful outlet for news. Anyone can post up current event via facebook and twitter. The public can easily view raw, uncut footage taken by civilians regarding any event and judge for themselves as to what’s really going on in the world. The internet became a worldwide global tool for enlightening people, but government Egyptian government felt that was too much power. Egyptian government did not want people to have access to that so they attempted to shut down all types of communication resources and only provide government approved newspapers. It’s obvious to say that newspapers cannot be trusted as the only source of information. Government attempt to limit access to internet has failed and Egyptians were still able to get their message across, organize protest and start a revolution.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Responses to “Blog 4”

  1. temimahz says:

    I really enjoyed reading your post, it was concise and offered a great summary as to what both sources were about. It’s true that things cannot be taken at face value: we always have to do more research and look for a source. Sometimes we see something in the New York Times or other renowned media and we trust it, shaking our heads at some such country or other, immediately forming opinions about who is the “bad guy.” But we need to instead find out more information and even then be skeptical…

  2. I never quite understood the entire concept surrounding the WikiLeaks. I was confused at why everyone was making such a big deal about it. Now I unterstand. I think it’s actually beneficicial for the public to be able to know what’s going on in the world behind closed doors. I really do believe that if the government stopped being so secretive all the time it would avoid major problems. I feel like their always hiding something from us, why not publish everything. We are going to have an opinion one way or another. It’s not our felt that the Government is extremely sensitive and can’t stand to hear the voice of the people. If we are paying taxes we deserve to know everything that goes on. It really should be left to us to judge (good point you made by the way).

  3. Prof. Hala says:

    The notion that there are “two sides” to every story, and that media should cover “both” sides is pretty much conventional wisdom in the U.S. But what does that really mean? What are the “two sides”? Often, this is interpreted by the mainstream media in terms of the two-party system, so that presenting “both sides” means presenting the Democratic and Republican perspective on an issue. That effectively means if the two major parties agree on something, it’s assumed there’s no debate or disagreement on the issue and it gets ignored. At a time when the major parties agree on so many core issues, e.g., on the financial crisis, financial reform, national security policy, etc., this means we don’t see these issues seriously debated in the media.