MovieChat Forums > We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks (2013) Discussion > Highly manipulative, factually incorrect...

Highly manipulative, factually incorrect, attack piece...Gibney, shame!

posted 10 years ago by casemon
11 replies | jump to latest

If you care about this subject, whether for or against wiki leaks, you'll watch it while reading the annotated and sourced transcript here:
http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html

Of course, if you don't, then yeah clearly your position cannot withstand factual rebuttal, so ok then you won't.

For it illustrates quite evenly, with sources and without vitriol, how completely dishonest and manipulative this film is.

I liked some of Gibney's past work, but this film is lowest form of deception I have seen in a long time. And from a director who I thought was above such dishonest manipulation. Shame on you Gibney.

And to everyone who lied on camera in this (not tricked ny Gibney): you are harming your species. Aim higher, please!

[–] rasmus4u 10 years ago

When I found the answers to the documentary, I was very eager to read them. But they seem very selective in what they address, their "sources" are not really telling what they are claiming. The "lies" and "inaccuracies" are overstated.
It confirmed the films portrait of wikileaks for me.

But I would very much like to hear your (and anyone else still defending Assange) thoughts on the fact that the people at wikileaks were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements? This organisation championing freedom of information insuring that noone can get information from inside of it.

[–] casemon 10 years ago

Sorry guy, but doubt very much you factually checked the sources with any fair analysis.

If you had, you'd see the bias is very much self-evident; not subject to such opinion.

It really is self-evident if you leave your stated bias out of it.

[–] rasmus4u 10 years ago

Example:
Narration by Alex Gibney:
A German IT technician, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, became the second full-time member of WikiLeaks.

(wikileaks):
Note: It is false that Daniel Domscheit-Berg was the second full-time employee of WikiLeaks. He volunteered full-time for WikiLeaks during 2009. He was uninvolved in WikiLeaks for most of the significant events of 2010, until he was suspended in September of that year.

Source (from august 2011):
Former Wikileaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims to have destroyed more than 3,500 unpublished files that had been sent from unknown informants and are now apparently lost irrevocably. These are documents which were stored until the late summer of 2010 on the Wikileaks server and were taken by a group including Domscheit-Berg upon their leaving the organization. Domscheit-Berg has "in the last days shredded" the files "to ensure that the sources are not compromised," said Domscheit-Berg. He said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could not guarantee a safe handling of the material. In the data base was among other things, the so-called "no-fly list" of the U.S. government, on which the names of suspects were listed, which are prohibited from entering an aircraft. Assange said the material would also have insider information from 20 right-wing organizations. Domscheit-Berg would not confirm that. Assange had been asking him to return the data since early this year.

The source is an article from after the fact, which I see several times in their sources. A news article that casually mentions something is not a great source, especially when it happens so far after what they are trying to prove. Also the article doesn't say anything about when he joined wikileaks. The comments from wikileaks often expand on the original comments and then give a source to their claim (which had nothing to do with the original statement.)

[–] rasmus4u 10 years ago

But yes it is not a fair analysis, it is just an impression. I quickly knew that I didn't want to waste my time reading all the comments and the sources.

With regards to my bias. I loved wikileaks. The Iraq and diplomatic leaks were fantastic (and I learn more of the organisations great work during the movie). I love Julian Assange for creating it and I hate Julian Assange for destroying it. To my great shame I have actually in the past had my own conspiracy theories about the case with his allegiant sexual misconduct, until I realised how unfair it is to them that the mob judge them instead of the legal system.

But if you tell me what you think about my question:

(But I would very much like to hear your (and anyone else still defending Assange) thoughts on the fact that the people at wikileaks were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements? This organisation championing freedom of information insuring that noone can get information from inside of it.)

I will gladly look at your best example (or couple of examples) of "Highly manipulative, factually incorrect" places in the movie.

[–] casemon 10 years ago

This forced false narrative you are projecting is without merit or basis in reality.

Wiki leaks is not destroyed, not even close.

The fact you continue to try to spin this like some tragedy tells me you've disconnected from objective reality.

Good luck with your propaganda :)

[–] rasmus4u 10 years ago

You really exemplify what I think is wrong with wikileaks (especially in their responds to this movie). I give you a concrete example, I give you the opportunity to give me (and any other that might read this, though it will probably just be us) all the examples of misconduct by the film and to respond to one of the worst charges against wikileaks in the movie. Instead of engaging in that dialogue you throw out 4 insult and 1 statement that you don't even qualify with an argument. It seems to confirm what we see in the film, Wikileaks and Julian Assange especially is beyond questioning. Any critic makes you a traitor, a liar and a propaganda tool of ... (well you don't say, so it is a little like the charge that Manning send information to the "enemy")

I'm not putting out propaganda (I seriously doubt that more than three people are going to see this). I am just asking question, that I would ask any other organisation or government. (If I had the chance I would also like to ask the government of Sweden why they can't just promise not to deport Assange to the US) The reason I posted here was that after the movie I was very curious as to how the people that still believe in wikileaks see that fact that they issue gag orders to their people. That they believe Manning should be freed, but would punish any of their own people that did what Manning did (I believe Manning did a great service to the world at great personal cost, so I am definitely against the imprisonment)

I definitely think we live in two different realities, but whether only one of us is in the "Objective reality" and who that is, is impossible to determine if you refuse honest dialogue.

[–] casemon 10 years ago

And I think you fail to grasp that this isn't about opinion, this about facts that are true or false.

The movie presents false information as true fact.

Coloring it with your emotional opinion dilutes the simple reality that the movie is full of intentional distortions.

Defending it is an act of dishonesty.

[–] FilmMuscle 10 years ago

lol there's propaganda on both sides of the spectrum. I bet most of the people giving this movie a "1" are die-hard loyal supporters of Wikileaks who don't want to admit any of its faults. The film explores both perspectives and is hardly one-sided.

[–] kduffy-8 10 years ago

I reacted emotionally to certain parts of this film so I made sure to tone it down and watch more objectively during subsequent viewings- and I'm still on the fence about several things wondering if I was manipulated by the filmmakers. It does seem to explore both perspectives while inferring certain things that I'm not sure I'm comfortable about on either side of the support/dislike fence.

The Manning debacle just guts me whatever way you slice it.

He hates these cans!

[–] FilmMuscle 10 years ago

I hate documentaries that stay neutral throughout because I fully know that the director behind it is just trying to cover his own ass. Nothing ever is "neutral" in reality.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]