No one cares about your leaked information

This evening WikiLeaks, working in conjunction with several major newspapers including the New York Times, released six years of classified reports about the Afghanistan war. Based on the play already being given this release, the news media and the pundit class expect this to be a major event. Glenn Greenwald has compared this to the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, stating that the Pentagon Papers caused the public to "behold the dishonesty about the war" and "had a significant effect on public opinion, as well as their willingness to trust future government pronouncements.  At the very least, it's difficult to imagine this leak not having the same effect."

I disagree. This leak won't matter that much. Here's why:

• Few people trust our public institutions anymore. Back in 1971, most people trusted the government, which is why the Pentagon Papers were so shocking. But we are now living in the bastard days birthed by events like the Pentagon Papers. Trust in all our public institutions is way down. So the government didn't tell the whole truth? That's like a dog bites man story--not notable to most people.
   
• Information overload. The more information that is thrown out there, the less people care. This is similar to what I was saying the other day about people in the future not caring if you have an opinion. The exception, as I mentioned, was when people risked something for their opinion. Likewise, the exception to people caring about information like these Afghanistan war reports is if the information has direct relevance to their lives. Unfortunately, in the United States and most Western democracies the people who fight our wars are a small subset of the population. Most people don't feel a connection to the war, so most people are likely to ignore this information.
   
• Information spin. When people are overloaded with information and don't trust official sources of information like the government, they cherry-pick the places they decide to trust. So they turn to partisan news outlets and blogs, or to talk radio and opinion-oriented broadcasts. They choose news which reinforces their own views even as these outlets filter the information that reaches their ears. In such an environment, I don't see these reports making much of an impact.

Of course I could be wrong, but that's my take on all this. Any thoughts?

Comments

[Kellye Parish]

I don't know...I have to say that I was moved deeply by Wikileak's last leaked video, "Collateral Murder", even though I'd already done a lot of research into human rights violations perpetrated by the United States in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

It's one thing to generally say that American soldiers sometimes act in brutal, sociopathic ways towards civilians in the war zones they frequent; it's another to see it in real-time footage, or in explicit photographs (such as during the Abu Ghraib scandal).

Of course there were outcries of spin when that information came out through Wikileaks too, but my response to that is you really can't edit a video of a soldier laughing as a tank rolls over the dead body of a Reuters reporter to make it sound any worse than it actually does.

That being said, I think a lot of people are at least vaguely aware that the undertone of some of our governmental doings these days is monstrous. If they are already aware of that fact, leaked papers like these will do little but reinforce the opinion they already have.

[Gordon Snelling]

I agree that people who don't follow politics are unlikely to pay much attention to this. Since this is the vast majority of the population, you are correct. But those few who do actively follow politics and related issues will pay a lot of attention.

One interesting element of this is the standard the USA military is being held to. The taliban can kill thousands by deliberately targeting civilians but when the USA mistakenly kills civilians or screws up with events like Abu Ghraib the outcry is far greater.

I wonder where we are going with this. Will we reach the point where no democratic country risks going to war? I suspect this is the ultimate aim of the people releasing information like WikiLeaks. Yes, "American soldiers sometimes act in brutal, sociopathic ways towards civilians" as Parish said above. But that is the nature of war. Nothing can change that. Do we desire a world where the only countries willing to go to war are those countries who don't care what their citizens think, who will kill or imprison any who stand before them. Yes the USA has faults but compare the government reaction to this release to how China or Russia would handle such a release.

[Kellye Parish]

"One interesting element of this is the standard the USA military is being held to. The taliban can kill thousands by deliberately targeting civilians but when the USA mistakenly kills civilians or screws up with events like Abu Ghraib the outcry is far greater."

^ In my opinion this is what separates the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys kill/torture innocent people and laugh about it. The good guys aren't supposed to, or at least that's the idea we as Americans have always been instilled with growing up.

If the line between your good guys and your bad guys starts to fall apart, there are some serious ethical questions that need to be dealt with, not blacked over in classified documents and swept under the rug.

Incidents like Abu Ghraib, combined with the fact that Homeland Security has practically become a fourth branch of the government, are very disturbing to me as a dystopian fiction scholar. I'm seeing WAY too much stuff that looks like it walked off the pages of an Orwell novel going on...

"Will we reach the point where no democratic country risks going to war?"

^ I hope so.

"Yes, "American soldiers sometimes act in brutal, sociopathic ways towards civilians" as Parish said above. But that is the nature of war."

^ I think your average civilian not only needs to see this kind of footage, but is obligated to see and process it if they want to have a legitimate opinion about war that takes all sides into account. You cannot support a war without knowing its nature (and consequences) through some kind of visceral experience - when you're not a soldier, videos like "Collateral Murder" are the only way to achieve that.

"Yes the USA has faults but compare the government reaction to this release to how China or Russia would handle such a release."

^ They would send federal agents to track down the founder of the organization and imprison him to shut him up...just like the United States is currently doing with Julian Assange.

[rochrist]

I expect that this will be as off as your prediction of Inception to flop. :)

[Jason Sanford]

Perhaps so. And Lord knows I was way wrong about Inception.

However, there is a parallel to the Washington Post's recent 2-year investigation into the United State's intelligence community. That report was supposed to be a big deal but it barely made a ripple in the general public's mind.

[rochrist]

I think the difference here is that the media loves to construct the narrative, and they're doing that with this. They were already pushing the war is unwinnable thing before this, and this will reinforce their belief in their own narrative, and lord knows the villagers love their narratives. Its much more fun for them than boring old nuance and context.

[rochrist]

Ok, I'm retracting my above. I'm now becoming convinced that they're going to make this all about WikiLeaks rather than the content. Sigh.
In other news, CNN thinks bloggers should go to jail for being mean.