re: #22 Obdicut

I was referring to your claim that it is Assange and Wikileaks who have caused the tendency of the media to focus on personality, which is something for which I have seen no evidence. Regarding them putting out the Shell story along with other things, I would simply note that they have 250,000 documents and have thus far released about two percent of those. There are going to be quite a few other stories. In order to do what you seem to want them to do in terms of ensuring that the media focuses on the important ones - something they have been disinclined to do anyway in regards to a great number of tremendously stories that have come out without involvement from Wikileaks - they would have to extend this release over a period of years. Even now they will be doing so over the course of several months. They do it like this because it is better to have access to information about the actual geopolitical situation sooner rather than later, and thus they had to strike a medium between releasing it in such a way that one can follow it - and I haven’t had any problems following the major revelations despite being a single person as opposed to a news station with a budget in the tens of millions - and releasing it in such a way as that it can be considered and acted upon in a timely manner by the world’s citizenry. Does this make sense? Meanwhile, I’m not arguing that Wikileaks should “replace” the media, but rather to supplement it with a great deal of data that has not damaged “national security” so much as it has revealed unforgivable acts by a great number of powerful entities.