That was odd. I wouldn't expect Maddow to be so incredibly uninformed about the content of the WikiLeaks.

Want to send her a letter asking her to reconsider her views. Let me know if you think this sounds good or if there is anything you would add/remove. Thanks

_ _ _

Dear Rachel Maddow Show team,

I'm writing in regard to Ms. Maddow's appearance last night on David Letterman and he comments on WikiLeaks. As someone who has done such an incredible job or reporting on issues more often than not overlooked by the majority or other news personalities I was surprised to hear Ms. Maddow claim that WikiLeaks has offered little of substance. This rant is not meant as a criticism of Ms. Maddow and her journalistic integrity, it is merely a plea from someone who is a fan that you take another look at WikiLeaks and it's impact.

First, it was Hillary Clinton who said, "Information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable." and this was proven by WikiLeaks with their release documents which helped change the course of elections in Kenya a few years back.

See more about that here: http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_t...

Clinton also stated, "technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights," which is reflected in our own government's reaction to the WikiLeaks.

There are numerous other examples of the profound effects WikiLeaks has had on our world. As for whether we should trust "freelancers from other countries" with our valuable information, I understand the security concerns of the info falling into dangerous hands, but in a nation where Telecom corporations are granted legal immunity from spying on American citizens(1), private financial firms are granted the powers of the Federal government in pursuing debtors(2) and our press has failed so miserably at exposing the issues that affect us most (Iraq & Afghanistan wars, fraud and corruption on Wall Street in the lead up to our collapse in 2008) it is important to have these things out in the open. If our own nation is unable to provide this important information to it's citizens anymore than I guess that is just one more job that should be outsourced.

Here is a quick rundown of some items I've read that I think are important enough to overshadow the fears Ms. Maddow has about WikiLeaks:

• Shell Oil infiltrates Nigerian ministries
• Secret war in Yemen
• Saudis want US to bomb Iran
• Saudis support terrorists
• BP had similar blowout before Deepwater Horizon
• Vatican suppressing legal probes
• US contractors still using child prostitutes
• US television (including Letterman) more effective at winning hearts and minds than propaganda

Ms. Maddow also stated that WikiLeaks has exposed a weakness in our National security. This true but it has also highlighted a lot more:

• Credit card companies and other private corporations can decide which speech is OK and which should be suppressed.(3)
• Our press and media have ceased being a counter to power and are now defenders of the powerful. (4)
• Freedom of information on the internet is essential for democracy.

I highly encourage Ms. Maddow to look deeper into the actual information coming out in the WikiLeaks and reflect on the impotence of our press over the past decade to inform the public on important matters before writing off Assange and his operation as a flash in the pan or simple anarchists.

Thanks so much for all your great work and your continued efforts.

Sincerely,
Geoff Ryan

NOTES:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-420010...
Senator Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

2. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14030
Taxpayer rights are at risk with privatization, Nina B. Olson, the I.R.S. taxpayer advocate, warned Congress earlier this year.

3. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_wiki_ho...
From your frequent guest Eugene Robinson:
When Iranian protesters were challenging the thuggish regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs last year, censors managed to shut down television coverage. But the world learned what was happening via Facebook and Twitter. Likewise, those Internet sites—Facebook has more than 500 million users worldwide, and Twitter an estimated 200 million—are important conduits for pro-democracy advocates in places such as China and Cuba. So who gives executives of private companies the right to decide that some unapproved speech will be encouraged and some will be suppressed? Do we want the people who run Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter or perhaps even—shudder—Microsoft, Apple or Google making political decisions on our behalf?

4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffing...
"My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal." - Judith Miller

I was pretty disappointed with Maddow's assessment of wikileaks. Though I do agree with her view of Julian Assange, and how he is perceived, my thoughts on the leaks themselves, not the man.

I mean, basically her argument was that US secrets aren't secret enough, and I get the point she was trying to make, was that the next Private who downloads information might sell it to China. But then she goes on to say, "It's all sorta stupid information anyways." Well, then, why would China be interested..?

But back to her main point, I mean, the video of the troops shooting civilians and Reuters journalists from a helicopter, I think should be one of the most powerful videos of our generation, akin to Tienamin Square.

And if wikileaks didn't release it, the military could've potentially told us "we killed a bunch of terrorists." But, most likely, they would've told us nothing at all.

That's pretty damn offensive, to hear that disregarded so.

Her other point is that most of what can be formed as the "big picture" in news, can be formed through open-source, declassified information. That we don't need wikileaks. Here's the problem with that- the big picture wasn't formed in the mainstream.

I won't forget a USA Today article that says, as it's headline, "'USA Safer,' Bush Says" and buries any criticism of Iraq in the back of the article. It's no wonder a large portion of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

People who watch Maddow's or Olbermann's show might know that he wasn't. But they should be worried about what people who DON'T watch their show, think.