Not the first person to spring to mind when considering the daily revelations from Wikileaks. As a letter in today’s Guardian points out, there are similarities in the way the message is massaged by those in power.
“In 1645, after King Charles I's defeat at the battle of Naseby in the English civil war, his letters were captured by the parliamentary army and published. The 17th-century royal response to these disclosures was similar to the denunciations of WikiLeaks. First, it was said nothing really new of any importance was revealed. Second, that they were an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of the king. (My emphasis) This defence was ineffective, as the correspondence revealed the king's public posture of agreeing to peace negotiations with parliament was a sham, because he was actively seeking allies abroad to carry on the fight for an absolute monarchy. Today governments talk of the progress in Afghanistan and publicly voice many other opinions that are far from how they think and act. As in 1645, the issue is not one of wrongful disclosure, but of government dishonesty towards the public.” Phillip Hall.
Every time you hear a politician tutting about the leaks, or even worse, a journalist defending the state’s desire to keep its citizens uninformed, remember that none of this is new.
'Twas ever thus.
No comments:
Post a Comment