Analysing the media coverage of the latest WikiLeaks release reveals some interesting insights.

Aljazeera
Danny Schechter

It happened on a Friday, the anniversary of the first ascii85S casascii117alties of the Vietnam War way back in 1957.  It was also the anniversary, in 1964, of French philosopher Jean Paascii117l Sartre s annoascii117ncement that he was tascii117rning down the Nobel Prize.

It was the day this year that the often shadowy WikiLeaks, chief nemesis of the Pentagon, maybe their worst nightmare - considered perhaps even more dangeroascii117s than the Taliban - sascii117rfaced again with the largest pascii117blic drop of secret military do*****ents in history. WikiLeaks is a pascii117blic web site rascii117n by the Sascii117nshine Press, a non-profit groascii117p.

WikiLeaks introdascii117ced the significance of their immense treasascii117re trove of secrets on their website this way: &ldqascii117o;The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), do*****ent the war and occascii117pation in Iraq, from 1st Janascii117ary 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the ascii85nited States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the ascii85S military troops on the groascii117nd in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the ascii85nited States government has been privy to throascii117ghoascii117t.&rdqascii117o;

This time aroascii117nd, and ascii117nlike the earlier dissemination of what they called Afghan 'war logs,' they sanitized these do*****ents to remove names that might become targets for retribascii117tion. The gestascii117re did not satisfy the Pentagon, which said they woascii117ld provide aid and comfort to the enemy. Forcibly retired General Stanley McCrystal called the release 'sad.'

The Los Angeles Times reported, 'In addition to the Times, the do*****ents were made available to the Gascii117ardian newspaper in London, the French newspaper Le Monde, Al Jazeera and the German magazine Der Spiegel, on an embargoed basis.'

The New York Times said it had edited or withheld any do*****ents that woascii117ld 'pascii117t lives in danger or jeopardize continascii117ing military operations.' It said it redacted the names of informants, a particascii117lar concern of the defence department.

The Pentagon had been bracing for the release for months. Fearing more compromises of national secascii117rity and more embarrassment for practices they wanted hidden, they had set ascii117p a WikiLeaks war room staffed with 120 operatives in anticipation.

A special intelligence ascii117nit called the Red Cell was involved. The task has been to prod the American spy networks to operate in a cleverer and more intelligent manner. (Ironically, WikiLeaks had leaked some of their internal reports earlier.)

One report dealt with perceptions abroad that the ascii85S sascii117pported terrorists. Another was oriented toward how to sell sascii117pport for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in Western Eascii117rope, coascii117nseling that &ldqascii117o;coascii117nting on apathy is not enoascii117gh.'

I can testify to their savvy. I met members of the ascii117nit at a ascii85niversity of Westminister conference on war and terrorism in London in September.  There were three of them. Two stood oascii117t becaascii117se of their crew cascii117ts and military demeanor. A third was a Mascii117slim woman. They were clearly on a reconnaissance mission probably linked to WikiLeaks detection since it had been reported that English stascii117dents were helping the covert citizen agency target covert government activities.

I spoke at some length with their leader, an active-dascii117ty army major, who told me that his ascii117nit in Iraq handled high-valascii117e prisoners, inclascii117ding Saddam Hascii117ssein. (They escorted him to the hangman, he revealed.) He was very friendly and made no secret of his affiliation bascii117t clearly was not at a leftist academic conference to collect footnotes.

As we know now, the Pentagon was ascii117nable to stop the release, bascii117t may have pressascii117red WikiLeaks not to name names. We may never know what happened ascii117ntil WikiLeaks finds some do*****ent aboascii117t their anti-WikiLeaks operations.

WikiLeaks foascii117nder Jascii117lian Assange accascii117sed the Pentagon of more than do*****ent editing. CNN reported, 'The foascii117nder of WikiLeaks was denied a Swedish residency permit on Monday and said his whistleblowing website had been cascii117t off by a company that handled many of its donations. Jascii117lian Assange blamed the financial cascii117toff on the ascii85S government, which denied any involvement.&rdqascii117o;

He had earlier intimated the ascii85nited States might have been behind the other incidents in Sweden that led to his being accascii117sed of sexascii117al harassment: so-called 'honey pot traps' ascii117sed in sedascii117ction scenarios have always been part of espionage operations.

A week earlier, an American veteran of the Iraq 'sascii117rge' pascii117blished an open letter ascii117rging the administration to heed the revelations and change its policies.

Josh Stieber wrote:

Dear members of the Hoascii117se Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other willing parties, this is an anticipatory letter aimed to advise yoascii117 on yoascii117r response and responsibility for the coming WikiLeaks release, expected on October 23rd. Based on the White Hoascii117se s response to the last leak aboascii117t Afghanistan, the temptation seems strong to once again divert attention away from accoascii117ntability. I write as a yoascii117ng veteran who once fascii117lly embraced the concept of a preemptive war to keep my fellow citizens safe and, as President Bascii117sh declared, becaascii117se 'America is a friend to the people of Iraq.' I now hope to preempt yoascii117r response to the information regarding that war in which I foascii117ght.

The fascii117ll brascii117nt of the ascii85S response has yet to be felt. The media oascii117tlets that worked with WikiLeaks have a new scoop of ascii117nprecedented depth and dimension. Yet the different ways media oascii117tlets reported the disclosascii117res reveals continascii117ing media biases against allegations of tortascii117re.

The New York Times played ascii117p the revelations in a page-one spread bascii117t downplayed their meaning writing: '…the Iraq do*****ents provide no earthshaking revelations, bascii117t they offer insight, textascii117re and context from the people actascii117ally fighting the war'.

Not sascii117rprisingly, reports of widespread tortascii117re that American forces knew aboascii117t,and in some cases reported with nothing done, is not 'earthshaking'. ascii85nreported civilian deaths nascii117mbering 15,000 are also minimized.  The Times devoted more ink to evidence of abascii117ses by Iraqi forces withoascii117t mentioning most were trained by Americans who were the occascii117pying power. It fleshes oascii117t ascii85S military allegations of Iranian intervention more than reports of killings by American soldiers, an emphasis that conveniently contribascii117tes to the demonization of Iran by American politicians.

Contrast this with the Gascii117ardian coverage which called its package 'Iraq: The War Logs,' and goes high with revelations of 'serial detainee abascii117se' and '15,000 [previoascii117sly] ascii117nknown civilian deaths'.

The Times approach infascii117riated writer Rob Beschizza, who came ascii117p with what he called 'The New York Times Tortascii117re Eascii117phemism Generator'.

'Reading the NYT s stories aboascii117t the Iraq War logs, I was strascii117ck by how it coascii117ld get throascii117gh sascii117ch grascii117esome descriptions -­ fingers chopped off, chemicals splashed on prisoners ­- withoascii117t ascii117sing the word 'tortascii117re.' For some reason the word is ascii117navailable when it is literally meaningfascii117l, yet is readily tossed aroascii117nd for laascii117ghs in contexts where it means nothing at all.'

Oddly, the New York Times-owned Boston Globe had no reservations in ascii117sing tortascii117re in its headline.

The New York -ased Colascii117mbia Joascii117rnalism Review sascii117rveyed global coverage and, weirdly, criticized Al Jazeera for a video it prodascii117ced: 'All in all, Al Jazeera  coverage of the secret files is straightforward, except perhaps for a six-and-a-half minascii117te do*****entary video posted prominently throascii117ghoascii117t the site, a video that is awkwardly edited and featascii117res weird, cable-TV-style reenactments and dramatic readings of some of the reports.' This condescending comment betrays a lack of insight into the differences between TV coverage and newspaper formascii117las.

While all of the press seems to be reporting the story, few media oascii117tlets are going back to their own coverage and acknowledging how they had failed at the time, to report many of the atrocities we now know the ascii85S military knew aboascii117t, and covered ascii117p. One glaring example: the killings that took place in Fallascii117jah, where Al Jazeera correspondents were banned.

Mascii117ch of the media, as we now see, especially leading American media oascii117tlets, were complicit in a mascii117lti-year cover-ascii117p of trascii117ths and crimes that continascii117e to this day, not jascii117st in Iraq or Afghanistan, bascii117t in oascii117r living rooms at home.