Why was the one person who has been blogging WikiLeaks for nearly two hundred days now, Greg Mitchell, not interviewed?
Most appearing in the documentary have a history of animosity toward WikiLeaks. There is one person who appears in the documentary as an unapologetic supporter of WikiLeaks. And, who is that person? Julian Assange.
David House's Reaction to the Documentary
On Twitter, House tweeted the following messages: "This year I've been calm despite being stalked, surveilled, bribed, detained, & having my computer seized, car towed, and friends punished". The first substantive anger I felt throughout these months arose tonight after watching the stridently propagandized @ frontlinepbs special".Indignation is the only orienting sense after gawking through the twisted pro-Washington hallucination called WikiSecrets." And, also, he tweeted, "The obvious government bias in @frontlinepbs"s "WikiSecrets" documentary mirrors a disturbing trend among US media outlets," and, "Students in Boston are subject to documented harassment by gov officials and @frontlinepbs focuses on unsubstantiated threats to Lamo."
Martin Smith Just Doesn't Get It
Watch the full interview posted and one can hear Smith during a break in the interview say to Assange that he is sorry he has to bring all these criticisms of WikiLeaks but he feels it is his "responsibility" to give Assange a chance to respond to the criticism. Assange disagrees and asks why critics should get to set the frame.
The answer is critics get to set the frame because PBS FRONTLINE is committed to producing objective and fair documentaries.
It's much easier to get Assange to address criticisms. It's far harder to put power on the defensive and force them to address some of Assange's concerns with the national security establishment in the United States, which is now trying to prosecute him and those linked to WikiLeaks.
Smith also says, "I'm not trying to get you in trouble on that. I just have to ask you these questions cause they're out there. Anybody who looks at the chat [logs] says what the hell is this? And I understand you are in a position where you can say only so much."
This remark comes after a line of questions aimed at unearthing a connection between Assange and Manning. Someone interviewing a person only talks like this if he or she feels he has to justify what he or she was asking in the interview to regain trust.
It's quite clear that Smith came to the interview with the intention of getting Assange to incriminate himself on camera so FRONTLINE could present a sensational "conspiracy" for viewers.
Those who watched the documentary can appreciate the visual representation of a timeline of events that occurred between Manning's arrest and now. The documentary, like most FRONTLINE documentaries, is well-produced and, nonetheless, informative. However, it presents itself as a production that has sensational new information to impart to viewers, which it does not. It also seeks to help viewers understand the nature of the WikiLeaks organization and it fails.
That's because it never intended to help viewers have a better understanding. As far as one can tell, nobody is supposed to walk away willing to trust WikiLeaks or support the stated mission and objectives of the organization.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
