The Main Strength of the Documentary and the Spin Control - Assignment Example

“We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks” The documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks” by Alex Gibney is a film that tries to reveal a saga, which dominated most media houses in 2010 and also recently through Edward Snowden’s case. While an organization like WikiLeaks may obtain its motivation from the decent ideals of accountability and transparency, many people have queried whether the realization of such ideals comes at a very high a price. In a time of improved transparency and almost absolute connectedness, the ethical insinuations of online whistle blowing merit careful inquiry, to which this documentary creates a welcome and reachable contribution. Certainly one notable fact is that the title of the documentary has something that sounds like a disrespectful slogan for the embattled WikiLeaks organization. Actually, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the National Security Agency ex-director is the one who speaks out the expression “we steal secrets.” Gen. Michael V. Hayden does this when he tries to explain how the activities of the government, which involve secrets, require absolute secrecy. The unanticipated basis of the quote is simply not a curiosity, since it lies at the heart of twinned stories of the documentary and WikiLeaks. The documentary gives an explanation of what took place when Julian Assange came up with the WikiLeaks project with the purpose of circulating sensitive documents from unidentified contributors, and when a forlorn private Army, Bradley Manning, took the chance WikiLeaks made to air the dirty laundry of the military (Dir. Gibney, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks). Furthermore, the documentary is a story of absolutist ideals that appeared somehow sour and of private distress in search of a channel, with drastic results. Alex Gibney’s account of this latest history tries to map out a kind of double misfortune. The documentary, which takes over two hours, shuffles among the well-revealed story of WikiLeaks, directed by the arrogant Mr. Assange; Private Manning’s far more persuasive afflictions involving sexual distinctiveness; and some strong but overlapping critics. The extensive treatment does not have the drive the documentary maker has depicted elsewhere, and the story feels prolonged to comprise an obviously prized interrogation with one of the two females who have made claims of sexual assault crimes against Mr. Assange. The woman with a partly hidden face plays a role in the documentary’s central, basic pivot regarding Mr. Assange, whose web site, the WikiLeaks, also supplied sensitive documents of the government to media organizations with inclusion of Guardian of London and New York Times. In this portrayal, the WikiLeaks front man Mr. Assange goes from bold intimidating secrets liberator to a suspicious creep condemned by those who were once his colleagues and on evasion from rape accusations. This is similar to the classified footage skin crawling of an attack by an American helicopter in Baghdad that led to the death of 2 Reuters journalists and 12 other common citizens. Viewers weaned on news footage of sycophantic Mr. Assange may be prepared for such a plan; however, that arc pales alongside, for instance, the intimate online chat proceedings that lets one get inside Private Manning’s head. Certainly, Mr. Assange remains in refuge in London at the Ecuadorean embassy (Dir. Gibney, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks). Generally, the primary focus of the film is on WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange’s personal stories, and the whistleblower and hacker, Private Bradley Manning. However, it intertwines into their stories of the media, intelligence, and political perceptions that surround them, while eventually leaving the audience to make a decision concerning the ethics of WikiLeaks. Julian Assange a known computer hacker from Australia is a self-styled cyber genius, who takes information from the very powerful sources like the government and presents it to the public through the website he purposely created for this operation; WikiLeaks. Mr. Assange and his supporters have the belief that making accessible classified information to the public will ignite both domestic and worldwide discussions and argument on the role of banks, the military and other organizations that will bring about better foreign rule and ethical conduct. The website permits people to circulate classified information with the guarantee that their anonymity will remain unrevealed. The documentary provides enough of the background of Mr. Assange as a young hacker and an activist with the intention to make viewer concurrently appalled and compelled by his brilliant but imperfect character. Mr. Assange was influential in the Icelandic bank irregularities leaking, and this was heard from the staff, intern and followers who sustained WikiLeaks in its campaign; all of whom Mr. Assange fell out with. The drama increases with an undeniable account of the largest revelation of all time (Dir. Gibney, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks); the 2010 classified documents (700,000 documents) by Private Bradley Manning. In addition, the WikiLeaks website, in 2009, had scheduled the information that it most preferred. This was an open summon to whistleblowers and hackers, which offered them a unique platform for their work. The secrets of the American military, for instance, were the top on the wish list of WikiLeaks. In Iraq, a discontented, perplexed and disappointed United States military intelligence officer and a specialist in IT, Private Bradley Edward Manning, had unrestricted way in to digital information: of an American helicopter in Baghdad that led to the death of 2 Reuter’s journalists and 12 other common citizens. The deplorable, playful heartlessness heard in the recordings’ voice of the crews in the helicopter as they shot innocent civilians, was among the numerous factors that pushed Bradley Manning to consider releasing the information he had collected for WikiLeaks. Since Bradley Manning let his personal problems and conflicting loyalties get the better of him, he decided to correspond with another hacker Adrian Lamo from the United States, to own up what he was thinking. It appears that Bradley Manning did in fact transfer his hoard of information to WikiLeaks; this was one of the major sets of restricted documents that was ever leaked to the general public, and between April and November 2010 a larger portion of the document was published by WikiLeaks and the media partners WikiLeaks. Eventually, Adrian Lamo decided to hand over Manning to the CIA, after which Manning was arrested with the charges of assisting the enemy in May 2010. Because of this, Manning is currently on trial at a military court and there are high chances that he will be jailed for life. The documentary offers a voice to Assange, his acquaintances and Manning as well as various spokespersons from the government of the United States, one of whom presents the documentary its name when he openly asserts that they steal secrets. He further clarifies this assertion by comments they steal secrets from other nations (Dir. Gibney, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks). They have the belief, with reason, that some of the documents revealed by WikiLeaks are responsible for almost an unmatched shift in worldwide power and in Muslim world’s stability. Certainly, many critics insist that the work done by WikiLeaks is not only an attack to the foreign policy interests of the United States, but also an attack to the global community; the partnerships and alliances that maintain global security and help in the advancement of economic prosperity. In addition, one of the political documents leaked without a doubt depicted the corruption and greed of the Tunisian president thereby fuelling an uprising. The insinuation was that spying was lawful but the leaking was not. Moreover, the documentary reminds an audience of the influential supremacy of documentary film-making and the necessity of more of it in a culture that is dominated by the selective out-of-context stories, which ‘trend’ (thanks to Facebook and YouTube) and ‘breaking’ news. The documentary leaves the audience with thoughts of a naive folk that unleashes uncontainable forces, which change reality. It provides the viewer with the cases prosecution and the defense of WikiLeaks, and it does not provide answers to the several questions that it formulate. For instance, some of the critical questions that it poses may be based on whether Bradley Manning was motivated by the yearning to punish his country for the unethical act it did or whether he thought, his action would lead to a positive result. Additionally, the documentary also leaves the audience wondering whether it is so predictable and suitable for the apprentice to bear the blame when the powers above them and the entire system are the ones with the mistake. The greatest question, however, that is posed to the audience is whether the existence of WikiLeaks is of value to the world or not. Certainly, it is to some extent appropriate that a documentary about secrecy ought to use private chat messages. Private Manning happened to have sent private chats to, Adrian Lamo, a former hacker who said he turned in Manning for the common good. In connection to such occurrences, the debate over the responsibilities and the dangers of secrecy plays out fluently with critics’ such as the Guardian’s reporter, Nick Davies and General Hayden. In summary, the main strength of the documentary is evident in its concise analysis of the spin control that followed as the document dump of Private Manning revealed certain unpleasant conducts of Americans while in war. Additionally, for all the faults of the documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks,” it majorly reminds the world that regardless of the WikiLeaks’ potential, its project of facts and consequences is still deceitful and complex in practice. However, it is important to appreciate the skills of the documentary’s director and the documentary as a whole for the revealing to the world tangible evidence that the world can use to determine the value of WikiLeaks. This is in revealing some of the global states’ secrets that could have remained unknown to numerous people. However, its reception especially by those featured in some of these rapports was overwhelming terming them as untrue with the intention to redeem respective reputations. Additionally, it is important to appreciate the way the director of the documentary has presented the evidence in an entertaining and compelling format. Work Cited We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks. Dir. Alex Gibney. Columbia, 2013. Documentary. Read More