- 10% Instant Discount with HDFC Cards for Prime members Here's how (terms and conditions apply)
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ 87.00 Delivery charge
WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy Paperback – 15 Feb 2011
Special offers and product promotions
Customers who bought this item also bought
Description for WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy
Mediaite, February 5, 2011
“While [The Guardian’s] rendition of experience does not fail to leave out the requisite depiction of Assange as overbearing and paranoid, the overall tone of the story, rather than vengeful, is surprisingly self-effacing.”
“You can imagine, then, how delighted I was to receive a copy of the Guardian’s new crash-published Wikileaks book and discover that it was all the things I wanted from the Times’ book. And more… Indeed, while ‘Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War On Secrecy’ is many things – a thriller, a story of international diplomacy, a tale of greed and ambition and double-crosses; a comedy, a tragedy – above all it’s a manifesto for the future of professional journalism…If Wikileaks is this generation’s Watergate, then ‘Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy’ might well prove to be its All The President’s Men; educating a whole new generation of would-be reporters on the power and importance of the professional press.”
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter mobile phone number.
|5 star (0%)|
|4 star (0%)|
|3 star (0%)|
|2 star (0%)|
|1 star (0%)|
Most helpful customer reviews on Amazon.com
It doesn't make the story itself bad, it is a good story with a lot of cruft.
But the story itself it's about Wikileaks, from its inception to the release of the so called Cablegate -- the release of several diplomatic cables. Actually, Wikileaks is just the background story here; the whole action is more about how The Guardian dealt with Assange and the other publishing partners than Wikileaks itself.
It's not a bad story, even with the abundance of words. There are a lot of forgotten elements -- like the story behind Manning and his leaking -- which tend to be completely ignored at this point. But, again, there are too many unnecessary words that go nowhere. Prepare to get annoyed about the continuous mention of the some cable over and over again -- and see the said cable in its complete form in the end.
(Why I'm mentioning this? 'Cause the book makes a huge deal of how several cables affected international politics, but keep mentioning the same three cables over and over again. I mean, if several where that important, why are the same three mentioned so many times?)
It is an analysis of Assange his motivations and the importance of his materials. They were the ones that analysed the Bradley Manning cables and published articles putting them in perspective. With out the Guardian reporters probably Assange would not have the entre on to the World's stage that happened. The book contains an appendix of some of the more important cables.
The book is not a character assassination. It does put the whole matter into perspective from the Guardians point of view. It is worth reading.
However the story is not over. There is the trial of Bradley Manning and the possibility Assange may be indicted or unindicted as a co-conspiritor. The matter in Sweden has also not run its course. Also the US has not officially charged Assange with a crime and has not sought his extradition from either the United Kingdom or possibly Sweden in the future.
Why it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden than the UK is not explained. It may be that any indictment needs Bradley Manning to testify he was a conspiritor because publication alone might not be a crime. Also is posting on the internet entitled to the 1st Amendment rights of publishers and reporters? Is the Huffington Post entiled to the same rights as the NY Times? I gave the book four stars because because of the objectivity problem.