Skip to main content

WikiLeaks - confusing statements, end of the road?

So WikiLeaks has come out and said that it has temporarily shut down operations as a result of the banking blockade that has dried up 95 per cent of its funds.




This makes absolutely no sense to me in the least.

A whole bunch of variables don't make sense here:


  • Why can't WikiLeaks simply create a shell corporations that people can contribute to and then simply move the money from that shell corporation over to WikiLeaks? 
  • Assange is saying that WikiLeaks needs the public's support, yet does not tell people what they can do (essentially making an empty statement that will leave viewers scratching their head as to what they can do to help)
  • WikiLeaks never released its supposed banking documents that were going to 'shock' the world and expose banking behaviors during the 2008 economic meltdown. 
  • The blockade has been through  Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union - ok fine, use other options, or a different bank, or let people send in cheques. Are we really to believe that five companies have the ability to cut WikiLeaks off financially?
  • WikiLeaks was getting 100,000 pounds a month in contributions, but now it is only getting 6,000 pounds a month (ummm, how are they getting the 6,000 pounds? However they are getting those contributions should be how others can contribute also).
  • Are you telling me that WikiLeaks couldn't approach guys like Michael Moore, who have come out very vocally in favor of WikiLeaks and ask for some cash? There are tons of celebrities with gobs of cash that would be more than happy to kick WikiLeaks some operating capital (especially with consideration to the publicity they would get).
  • To the extent that the banks have cut off 95 per cent of WikiLeaks revenue, why are they just speaking up now? Would you not be making public statements when you noticed revenues dropping to 50 per cent? Why wait until it's basically too late to state that you're about to go under?
  • Lastly, how much does it really cost to run WIkiLeaks? It's a web site for heaven's sake. People send in leaked info, you post it online. Ok, fine, you've got to read it and sort through it but that doesn't cost millions of dollars to do. WikiLeaks started with no money and now we are to believe they can't exist without millions?
I'm sorry but this whole story stinks to me, especially the fact that they never released the banking leaks they publicized so much. You'd think if they had all these leaks from a big bank (people speculated it was Bank of America) that the very first thing they would do in response to a banking blockade would be to release said documents in retaliation.

If you want the world to support you, the easiest way is to show that the people attacking you truly are evil. The public would rally to your aid in that case.  

Nope, it sounds to me like WikiLeaks has been officially co-opted. The powers that be have likely sat Assange and company down and told them 'Enough is enough kids. Sure it was fun being global, whistleblowing anarchists, but you've had your fun and now it's time to pack it in. You can go out and make a big spectacle about funding issues to save face and provide a rationale for why you are closing shop, but make no mistake about it, it's time to close up shop."

Despite equity markets going higher (which makes no sense - that's not just me saying that, many are saying the markets don't make sense any more), the world is on the titanic brink of crashing in to a debt iceburg that simply can't be avoided much longer.  

Can you imagine what would be happening right now if WikiLeaks were releasing information on Bank of America or on what's really going on over in Europe with the EU, ECB and all these crazy plans to save the PIIGS? 

Such information would prevent political leaders from doing the things they need to do (away from the public eye) to stabilize things. Such information would only fuel populous anger, potentially causing folks like Occupy Wall Street , protesters in Greece or the public in Germany (who are going to get hosed in any ECB bailout plan) to become even more extreme in their opposition to the powers that be. 

From a basic PR perspective WikiLeaks public statements regarding lack of funding just make no sense to me at all. 

What will be interesting to watch is the extent to which Assange engages the media over the coming months. If my assumption is correct and this is all just PR whitewashing in an attempt to wind down WikiLeaks in a believable fashion, we won't be hearing much from Assange. 

If I'm wrong then one would expect to see Assange go on a global media tour talking to every media outlet that will listen in an effort to rally public support for WikiLeaks. 

Time will tell what the real story is here. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morgan Freeman Botches Reddit IAmA - Black Eye on PR

For those not familiar with Reddit it's basically a forum where people post interesting things on a wide variety of subjects. Postings gain popularity when people 'up vote' them and become more visible in their particular subreddit (a subreddit is simply a subject category, like politics or videos). One of Reddit's most popular subreddits is the IAmA subreddit - which allows reddit users to ask questions of various people. Over three million people subscribe to IAmA, which is also widely used by celebrities. An IAmA can last a couple hours during which Redditors (the term Reddit users call themselves) can ask the person doing the IAmA questions. The term "IAmA" comes from the concept of "I Am A doctor, ask me anything", "I Am A movie star, ask me anything" - you get the drift. IAmA's are not just for celebrities, lots of common folks do them as well. Recently Morgan Freeman did an IAmA  and it turned into a PR mess. To make a lo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mainstream versus Alternate Media - Where is the news now-a-days?

It's well known that CNN has been suffering an exodus of viewers, losing over half their viewership over the past couple of years. Yet Fox News has not lost viewers, but has increased its viewership slightly. It's an odd phenomena given that Fox news is clearly biased in their coverage. Mind you, so is CNN according to many. But I'd suggest it comes down to something much more simple.  While Fox may be holding its ground, the rise of alternative media is taking off where CNN left off - a focus on hard news. For those of the under 40 crowd, that's what they are looking for, NEWS. The simplest way to highlight the difference between mainstream media and alternative media is to take a look at their homepages and the stories they highlight. It becomes very clear why people are turning away from CNN and turning to alternative media. Let's look at five media sites and their homepage (click on pictures to enlarge): CNN Feature stories: CNN heroes Top t...
Post a Comment
Read more

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...
3 comments
Read more