Wednesday, January 12, 2011


The NYT refers to Wikileaks in this article as an "antisecrecy organization". I am not sure the debate has been resolved on Wikileaks' objectives though. In the past, the main way it worked was probably to leak everything it had without edition, but the pace at which Wikileaks is adapting makes its categorization quite complicated. What is the solution? Maybe put "would-be journalistic organization". It seems that Wikileaks wants now to be consider as a credible provider of information, so this term seem to be factually correct(in the sense that, as I say, the debate on what differentiates the NYT and Wikileaks has not been settled yet in my opinion.)

Sunday, January 9, 2011

On yesterday's shooting

As a quick note, it is striking to see how Sarah Palin has become a really interesting/worrying subject in American politics and media. For now, there is nothing to link her to anything that happened yesterday, but yet a lot of bloggers, and the main newspapers, referred to this map with crossheads on 20 congressional democrats; and Sarah Palin removes the map and also her infamous "reload" tweet.

This does not make any sense. By linking yesterday's events to Sarah Palin, or more generally to the Tea Party or the Republican rethoric, actually weakens this totally justified case(just remember Sharon Angle, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sarah Palin's tweet). Since for now there is no proof of anything, this just leaves the justified criticism that this is bullshit liberal complaints. It's completely counterproductive.

Also, Sarah Palin has nothing to do with this. I really do not understand how important and polarizing she has become in the US.