Where are the calls for ‘context’?
Last week we heard the word “context” every two minutes from the media and the White House in defense of Shirley Sherrod, whose words, they tell us, were taken out of context. So where are these purveyors of context today when we need them?
The 91,000 “document drop” cries for some context – just like their release of the “Collateral Damage” video needed context that WikiLeaks was unable, or unwilling, to provide.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Noel Shachtman of Wired warns us about not questioning the context using an incident that he witnessed to which some of the leaked documents refer;
The vast difference between what actually happened at the Moba Khan compound in Helmand province and what the report says happened there should give caution to those who think they can discover the capital-T truth about the Afghanistan conflict through the Wikileaks war logs.
You should read his whole comparison of what Shachtman witnessed and what the leaked documents says happened.
Thanks to some friends for the link.rom
Category: Terror War
The American public is far more sophisticated about video coverage of controversial events than it used to be. I think people will dig a little rather than buy something hook, line, and sinker.
I think the “context” that needs to be emphasized is that Afghani informants are going to die because of what was released.
Wikileaks is an accessory to murder.
Great, just great. Not only are people who trusted us going to die for Mr. Asshole’s politics-playing, think of what a huge blow this is going to be for COIN efforts. Would you be inclined to ever trust us again now that it has been shown we can’t keep your help from being leaked and getting you killed?
hows this for out of context:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/health/policy/24veterans.html?_r=1