November 14th, 2016 | Julia Becerra
Two Things That We didn’t Learn From Wiki leaks and Emails Hacks : There is Manipulation Through Information: Its Timing and Its Presentation
In the last few years and more abundantly during 2016, we have been inundated by “breaking” news coming from releases done by wiki leaks or from email hacks or from both.
As soon as we read a headline with the words, Wikileaks or email hack, our minds and eyes follow the read (the article) with the expectation of finding something unusual, something forbidden to be known; a new development; a never imagined story. A colorful story we can’t wait to read on. And perhaps some of that was the case when we first heard about wiki leaks and email hacks, perhaps… but ever since and more and more often, the reality is that what we learn thru the “breaking” news coming from wiki leaks and email hacks is nothing different from what we already knew existed, or happened or took place. In occasions it is just the validation of it, in other occasions it is just the plain confirmation of the obvious.
The thing is that we have been told that the premises behind publications from wiki leaks and email hacks are to keep the public informed and provide transparency but Transparency does not exist. Unless we define transparency within a specific context it does not exist and it does not make the same sense.
All news have an objective; a partiality to it; if not within the context itself then within the timing of its release. And it any case, these leaks of information are not specifically about a war at all, actually most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state, or a company keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance.
Putting the information out as a “novelty” makes it sound like something “out of the ordinary”, as something bad that needs to be known. The public is then predisposed to see it that way, and regardless of the news or document content it is already seen with bias.
Let’s put for example the news recently published in the wall street journal regarding the twitter acquisition by salesforce (http://www.wsj.com/articles/salesforces-m-a-target-list-excluded-twitter-1476834470?mod=djemalertNEWS) Salesforce’s M&A Target List Excluded Twitter.
‘Salesforce eyed 14 companies as possible acquisition targets in May, according to leaked Colin Powell email published by DCleaks.’
Do we need to have an email hack or a wiki leak release to find out that yes, it is a business practice and actually a good one, to consider more than one company as an acquisition target? Do we need to look for a wrongdoing here?
The way that the news is presented suggests that there is. Then again, if we look at that particular presentation itself we may even start to believe that there was, so in order to be impartial we would need to have access to all other presentations and emails, and communications on the subject. But does it make sense? Where does the privacy of conducting business starts and ends?
By releasing documents like this to be published by news organizations, we overstay the obvious and instead of giving clarity and confirmation to an existing valid process we cloud our vision, and open ourselves to being even more manipulated by the media, to be swayed in any direction almost like in a puppet story, where we don’t have much to say.
We, as a public, are led to believe that wiki leaks and other email hacks are allowing sunlight into the darkness that we live in, but perhaps what it is actually doing is adding more dark particles to our clouded vision.
If anything is just adding more grit to it; on the name of clarity and democracy it is creating a sort of chaos and disbelief that questions even the practices that we previously assumed were right and that made sense.
Information by itself is not information, we have to find a context for it otherwise it would be opening a door to mislead the public. That is probably why some information is best to keep it from being published. And if it is to be released, before it is made available to the general public it should be put in the right context, with the appropriate background given and the right wording used. Just imagine a total innocent conversation between two parties with their own sense of humor and their own personal touch and wording:
===================================================
From: John Wayne
To: James Bond
Date: November 13th
Subject: This weekend
Hey James, are you ready for the action? I got Dick ready. It would be great to do it under the Supermoon we are expected to have this weekend. I bet you want to ride, and guess what? Me too. And this time I want to do him justice…
See you under ……
———————————————————————–
Now take the same email and make it public. There would be at least hundred interpretations for it; it could be manipulated in any direction possible even within the same context. So yes, some things are better kept private especially when they are meant to be a private conversation. (Or when Diplomatic matters are included in the subject of discussion)
In a complex political and financial world, how beneficial is that we know the obvious? And that we make it sound like something out of the ordinary?
It is not about knowing or not knowing. For example, we all know that political favor exists now as it did in the time of the roman emperors. And we all probably knew that more or less this is still the case; We also knew that International Diplomacy involves more than private dinners and off hours drinks; anyone who was surprised that our embassies are doing dirty, secretive, and disingenuous political work as a matter of course is naïve and finding it out thru the news would only make it an even more perfect manipulative material.
We also know that some things are discussed privately and agreements are made under closed doors. How else should it be done?
I believe the issue here is to keep an eye on how are things done and make sure they are done as per our current legal and regulatory systems; our job is to watch people with power and try to ensure that people with power don’t misuse it.
Now, we should definitely take advantage of the information we get, but we should also demand to have it presented with the appropriate background, within the appropriate context, and away from a selfish timing.
So going back to my original premises of what we have or haven’t learned from wiki leaks and hacked emails in general, – And I say in General not to be mistaken by each individual content published or released in the last 10 years- but what we have learned by the practice itself, it comes down to two things we already knew:
- Business is business as usual
- The world is as perfect and imperfect as we thought it was..
And yes we have been and continued to be manipulated by information: its timing and its presentation.
Diplomacy works as we imagined it would: There are discussions done via email, via phone calls and personal meetings. Humans keep being humans with all the ups and downs. By reading it in the news we just get the confirmation of it.
What is the big deal? If any of you have not been at any point involved in a project of any size, and of any topic, where emails or texts or phone calls or personal meetings have not been necessary to carry out, and some sort of privacy have not been necessary to make it happen, then please let me know. It would be the first ever in this 21st century.
We should just take the wiki leaks and the email hacks with a grain of salt; and talking about salty things…While I wait for your feedback on this post, I am off to discuss my Thanksgiving project, and yes, it would imply some emails, some phone calls, definitely a meeting or two and more than one trip to the supermarket.
I would love to hear your suggestions/comments on the subject.
Thank for reading my blog.
Remember to follow me on twitter @jbradiant
lifeinxxidotcom 