The Blogosphere is gorging itself on the Wikileaks banquet this morning; a triumph of style over substance. The Cuisine Minceur of the electorate’s fight for transparency from our political masters.

Wikileaks is a masterpiece in media manipulation. It proclaims itself the fearless warrior against a lack of accountability and ‘truth’ from – primarily – the American government. Yet it admits no audit, publishes everything and anything which is sent to it. Such is our mistrust of our political leaders that we assume the release of documents marked ‘secret’ to be a ‘truth’ that is being suppressed by sinister Machiavellis. It is no such thing, it is an alternative point of view, and should be treated with the same cynicism that we treat the official outpourings.

The 250,000 snippets of gossip and tittle-tattle that have been disgorged to squeals of delight on the Internet, to an audience reared on conspiracy theories and celebrity press releases, are nothing more than the subjective opinion of various individual Americans stationed around the world tasked with filing regular ‘helpful’ appraisals of the political world in which they are stationed.

Donkey’s years ago, I was interviewed by some ‘gentlemen’ from the Foreign Office in connection with people I had business dealings with. The ensuing reports were assumed to be confidential, but were released some 30 years later in connection with another matter. The final line of the reported interview has caused endless mirth to anyone who knows me. ‘The interview was shorter than expected because Miss ‘Raccoon’ had to leave early to catch a train back to Paris to return to her job as a Bluebelle dancer…….Sandhurst’s finest Warrant Officers couldn’t drill me into marching in time to music, sticking an ostrich feather in my backside and spraying me with spangles certainly won’t turn me into a Bluebelle dancer, I am tone deaf. Why the interviewer wrote that, I cannot begin to speculate, but there it is, in an official government document. If I release that to Wikileaks, does that turn my non-existent career as a Bluebelle dancer into the ‘truth’? – of course it doesn’t. It remains the same speculative and subjective ‘opinion’ of an individual who never thought it would see the light of day.

Yet we have been treated to the sight of BBC ‘experts’ anxiously watching their lap-tops (and checking their Blackberries at the same time, lest they miss some snippet) solemnly declaring that this ‘leak’ has sparked a ‘global diplomatic crisis’.

What? Nobody suspected that the Saudi’s might want Iran stopped from having nuclear power until Wikileaks leaked that information? You really thought the Saudi’s were backing Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Sheesh!

So far I have pre-supposed that Wikileaks, which has held onto this information for some months – so much for the necessity of getting it out into the open – has not interfered in any sinister manner with what was in those cables. One of the few ‘truths’ in this matter is that we don’t know – for an organisation so keen on the American government being open, they are less than transparent themselves. If we give them the benefit of the doubt, that the documents are untouched, do we know that whoever uploaded them onto Wikileaks resisted the temptation to add titbits to them? What are a few altered words amongst 250,000 cables?

Add the word ‘voluptuous’ to the cable describing Gadaffi’s nurse and you have ensured worldwide attention from an audience reared on stories of breast enhancements and illicit sexual shenanigans. Hague shared an apartment with a gay man? Whooosh! More headlines.

Sipnet, the internal cyber network that was the origin of this leak, was encouraged to ‘share information’ in the wake of 9/11. They apparently issued 2,500,000 access codes to the network. Any number of low level employees could have downloaded the material. The main suspect, Bradley Manning, has been reported as saying ‘it was ridiculously easy’ to do so.

I have given up counting the number of times that I have seen it written in the past few days, that the UK ‘has issued a ‘D’ notice in respect of the impending leak’. A nice rumour which only serves to enhance Wikileaks product.  It didn’t. It hasn’t. There are five standing ‘DA’ notices, concerning identification of Special Forces troops – DA Notice 05, and the possibility of endangering troops in the battlefield – DA notice 01. Perfectly reasonable requests from any government. All that happened was that Andrew Vallance asked editors to seek his advice if they thought any of the material they were about to publish might conflict with those criteria.

Therefore, may I ask you to seek my advice before publishing or broadcasting any information drawn from these latest Wikileaks’ disclosures which might be covered by the five standing DA Notices. In particular, would you carefully consider information that might be judged to fall within the terms of DA Notice 1 (UK Military Operations, Plans and Capabilities) and DA Notice 5 (UK Intelligence Services and Special Forces). May I also ask you to bear in mind the potential consequential effects of disclosing information which would put at risk the safety and security of Britons working or living in volatile regions where such publicity might trigger violent local reactions, for example Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Still those with an anti-American agenda sought to further enhance the news value of the Wikileak by claiming that it was ‘censored’ and they were somehow brave warriors themselves for refusing to be censored.

One quoted sentence from Manning should worry us all –

“Worldwide anarchy in CSV format … It’s beautiful, and horrifying”

– and Assange, the former hacker now restyled as ‘freedom of information activist’ was only too happy to help that anarchy along – in his own good time, once commercial matters had been secured.

Panem et circenses – bread and circuses – to keep the Blogosphere occupied and distract us from our task of holding our government to task over serious matters.

The truly cynical might wonder who really leaked this dubious non-event to the Internet – and why.

Katabasis November
29, 2010 at 14:37

I guess I must be one of those “guardian readers” or “tin foil hat wearers”
Clarissa mentions above in that case.

Yes, there is lots of titilatting goss that has caught the eye of a lot of
the media.

Whilst your critical points on the nature of Wikileaks are well taken, I
find it very very hard indeed to write off a lot of what I’ve seen so far as
“trivia”. For gods’ sake – the directive to the diplomatic service spy on the
UN and gather – amongst other things – DNA from the targets is beyond the
pale! Reading through the cables one at a time, I found one in particular that could single handedly stop
Turkey’s accession to the EU because of the stark assessment it gives of
Turkey’s corruption and rising Islamism within the government.

And this is just from the first 219 released.

Rog November 29, 2010 at 13:44

Sorry, but voluptuous nurse did it for me.

Anna
Raccoon November 29, 2010 at
14:04

Jeez but you’s shallow lad……..!

SadButMadLad November 29, 2010 at 13:38

Andrew Orlowski over at El Reg agrees with you Anna, even
going as far as saying that this release of trivia helps keep the public in
the dark – because it is trivia that is satisfying the public whilst the real
secrets are still kept hidden.

The US government and others might be saying “OMG the world has come to an
end and all informers will be killed” but in actual fact all the information
released was probably already known via their own security services and
diplomats – it would be criminal for them not have this info.

In actual fact, most of the information released is not a surprise. Just a
confirmation of what most people already think has happened, like the case
with Saudi – no love lost between them and Iran for yonks.

zaphod November 29, 2010 at 13:25

But it’s not about surprises. It’s about the embarrassment of the masters.
Come on, rejoice a little? Don’t be so bloody sophisticated!

I know there’s not much real information in it. But one day historians may
refer to the impact it eventually had.

JuliaM November
29, 2010 at 13:06

There are no surprises in this information. This isn’t like the closing
scenes of ‘The Rock’.

Did anyone think it would be?

Clarissa November 29, 2010 at 13:16

Only those reading the Gruniad and the tinfoil hat brigade.

woodsy42 November 29, 2010 at 11:36

I must admit to mixed feelings here Anna. While I take your point that
Wikileaks is probably not the altrusitic organisation they may claim, and
there may well be hidden agendas at work, there is nevertheless a welcome
pleasure in getting a bit of our own back on the political classes. Two wrongs
may not make a right, but when it comes to revenge they may combine to make us
feel better!
After all, these politicians are the very people who insist we
are photographed naked before we can board a plane, collect all our private
and financial details, scan our Internet use and tell us that if we are
innocent we have nothing to fear from transparency. Such leaks couldn’t happen
to a more deserving bunch.
As for the leak’s actual importance I agree with
you, nothing I have seen yet creates the slightest surprise or shock, and we
should be very wary of drawing any conclusions from what is in effect
incomplete gossip.
Meanwhile on a brighter note can we look forward to your
posting some videos of your past employment – but really, what a bizare thing
to have written in a report.

Anna
Raccoon November 29, 2010 at
12:22

Find me an ostrich feather woodsy42 and I’ll see what I can do – you may
be bitterly disappointed though!

I do take your point about revenge – but that is all it is, a bit of fun,
distracting us from the serious business.

woodsy42
November 29, 2010 at 16:01

I have looked Anna but sadly I think fans of Cher’s soon to be released
film have cornered the market in ostrich feathers!
On your comment
about being distracted from the serious issues by this relatively trivial
leak, I think you hit on a key issue. In my more ‘foil hat wearing’ moods
I sometimes wonder how much of the political resistance and dissent that
we hear in the media, and indeed read in the blogosphere, is real. Much of
it could just as easily be set up to provide distraction, lightning rods
for dissent or honey traps for activists and we have no way to be sure
what is genuine.

lenko November 29, 2010 at 11:13

Maybe I’m cynical (moi?) but I’d guess that your mythical job as a Bluebell
dancer provided an excuse for a further “interview” for the gentlemen from the
Foreign Office. One that you didn’t actually attend but which they did, and at
your place of business. I’m sure that, though you weren’t there, they
subjected your colleagues to a very close scrutiny.

Ooh la-la! Quel surprise!

zaphod November 29, 2010 at 11:04

Anna, you spoilsport! Can’t we gloat just a bit?

Yo’re right about gossip, though. When we listen to gossip, we don’t find
truth, we just find out what people are saying.

Even so, I am enjoying a bit of schadenfreude. What’s that expression that
the righteous use? Ah yes, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing
to fear.”

I appreciate that there’ll be some regrettable damage. But, like it or not,
everybody has to get used to the idea that the hypocrisy of those in control
has been curtailed permanently by the “information age”. It will all cause
some pain, and upheaval. The invention of the printing press, and radio,
presumably did the same.

I take your point. We are getting a bit carried away. But don’t be too
harsh on us. We need to party sometimes.

StewartCowan
November 29, 2010 at 09:42

@annaraccoon2010 Great post – (did you mean 9/11?)

Anna
Raccoon November 29, 2010 at
10:01

Whoops! Yes. thank-you.

Stewart
Cowan November 29, 2010 at
11:20

I didn’t realise tweets found their way onto the blog!

It is a brilliant post. So glad you’re back.