Since E.D. Hirsch failed in his noble jihad to enforce Cultural Literacy, I can’t assume readers are familiar with the scene in “Annie Hall” in which Woody Allen stops a movie line bloviator from pontificating about Marshall McLuhan by producing the actual Marshall McLuhan from behind a movie poster to tell the pontificator off. So, here is a clip:
But the funny thing is, sometimes life is just like that, and in the past week we have been presented with a spectacular, world-historical example.
A standard bloviator talking point in the last few weeks against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange has been: the WikiLeaks release of classified US diplomatic cables is nothing like the Pentagon Papers case, which exposed the US government’s fundamental lying to the public about the Vietnam War, and Julian Assange and alleged leaker Bradley Manning are nothing like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. This Manichean division between “good” and “bad” leakers has been recited with great earnestness: “Four legs good, two legs baaaad!”
A striking example was noted by Sam Husseini on December 5, citing an appearance by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin on CBS’ “Face the Nation”:
Bob Schieffer: Do you think [Assange has] damaged national security?
Sen. Richard Durbin: I do.
Bob Schieffer: You do?
Sen. Richard Durbin: I do. And I’ll tell you I come from an era where I think [the] Daniel Ellsberg situation with the Pentagon papers was a clear contrast. Here was the disclosure of classified information in the midst of a war that brought out some things that were not well known, not public and might have changed I think the course of history.
But Durbin overlooked a key consideration best kept in mind by those who wish to rewrite history when the history is fairly recent: Ellsberg must have eaten his vegetables, because he is still alive and breathing fire, and isn’t having any of Durbin’s good leaker/bad leaker dichotomy. As Husseini noted on December 5:
If you go to Daniel Ellsberg’s web page or his Twitter feed it is virtually wall-to-wall an ardent defense of WikiLeaks, most recently ditching and attacking Amazon following their pulling the plug on WikiLeaks.
And now, thanks to “The Colbert Report,” the American people know that Ellsberg stands firmly behind Assange, Manning and WikiLeaks:
Ellsberg: Julian Assange is not a criminal under the laws of the United States. I was the first one prosecuted for the charges that would be brought against him. I was the first person ever prosecuted for a leak in this country – although there had been a lot of leaks before me. That’s because the First Amendment kept us from having an Official Secrets Act…. The founding of this country was based on the principle that the government should not have a say as to what we hear, what we think, and what we read …
If Bradley Manning did what he’s accused of, then he’s a hero of mine and I think he did a great service to this country. We’re not in the mess we’re in, in the world, because of too many leaks…. I say there should be some secrets. But I also say we invaded Iraq illegally because of a lack of a Bradley Manning at that time.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| International Manhunt for Julian Assange – Daniel Ellsberg | ||||
|
||||
Courage to Resist has a petition in support of Manning.
Avaaz.org has a petition in support of WikiLeaks.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.