Fifth Estate, Third Rail

[MovieBob]

Fifth Estate, Third Rail

I have a certain amount of admiration for the new "story of WikiLeaks" drama The Fifth Estate. A kind of cautionary tale of what can happen when zealous commitment to a political/philosophical ideal collides with the real world.

Read Full Article

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Even if the film has a few missteps, it might be worth seeing just for the satisfaction of somebody else taking a middle-ground on this issue. Western politics at the moment is particularly divisive in many aspects, but in particular it's stuff concerning Wikileaks that I've found the largest sentiment of "You're either with us or against us." You can't admire people who want to expose genuine misconduct from people in positions of great power without being a traitor who wants the terrorists to win, and conversely, you can't question whether Assange and those of the same cloth really have everyone's best interests at heart without being a government shill who have some kind of fetish for being lied to.

If this film could introduce just a little bit of sanity into this debate, that might be something worth remembering it for.

 

[hermes]

I am not sure why so many critics have recently addressed the issue of politics in media, but since he put it a lot better than me, I will leave this here:

 

[AntiChrist]

I am not sure why so many critics have recently addressed the issue of politics in media, but since he put it a lot better than me, I will leave this here:

I'm glad too see, that I'm not the only one on this site who watches Errant Signal.

 

[Sean951]

Yeah...

I'm siding with the real Julian Assange on this one. The movie is a glorified smear campaign, and holds almost zero accuracy.

When the British Prime Minister, one of the people most hurt by WikiLeaks' actions, calls the film about the leader of WikiLeaks a "Masterpiece", something has gone horribly fucking wrong.

Or Wikileaks/Assange isn't as benign or helpful as you would like to think.

 

[Dunesen]

I am not sure why so many critics have recently addressed the issue of politics in media, but since he put it a lot better than me, I will leave this here:

I think the apparent rise of discussion of politics in media is a result of the recent rise of hyper-partisanship and the transformation of everything into a political football. While partisanship has always been a thing, there used to be far more topics and subjects that weren't treated as a 'liberal vs. conservative' or 'Democrat vs. Republican' issue. For example, prior to the Obamas moving into the White House the First Lady would traditionally have a pet cause she would advocate, something apolitical like combatting illiteracy or drug use. Michelle Obama chose childhood obesity, and Sarah Palin and others reacted to this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaUmOAlz6Zw] as if she was calling for the government to step in and control everyone's eating habits.

 

[Dunesen]

I think the failure of White House Down was less any perceived political message and more that Roland Emmerich has burned up all his good will with the public through pieces of crap like 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Wait a minute, I thought Bob injects a lot of his politics into his movie reviews. What he said in the opening paragraphs threw me off the premise. Now I'm worried which way he'll swing in his review of the next Hunger Games movie, and he delightfully savaged the last one.

I am not sure why so many critics have recently addressed the issue of politics in media, but since he put it a lot better than me, I will leave this here:

I think the apparent rise of discussion of politics in media is a result of the recent rise of hyper-partisanship and the transformation of everything into a political football. While partisanship has always been a thing, there used to be far more topics and subjects that weren't treated as a 'liberal vs. conservative' or 'Democrat vs. Republican' issue. For example, prior to the Obamas moving into the White House the First Lady would traditionally have a pet cause she would advocate, something apolitical like combatting illiteracy or drug use. Michelle Obama chose childhood obesity, and Sarah Palin and others reacted to this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaUmOAlz6Zw] as if she was calling for the government to step in and control everyone's eating habits.

I watched that video and I couldn't tell where he was coming from. Was he looking for messages that say something bad about America in games, or was he making fun of other people who do that?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I think the apparent rise of discussion of politics in media is a result of the recent rise of hyper-partisanship and the transformation of everything into a political football.

That seems unlikely to me, as the people who seriously address politics in games tend to come at it from a very moderate and considered viewpoint, such as Bob in this article, and the Errant Signal video linked here.

It actually seems to be the people who object to the discussion of politics in games who are the most partisan, but they seem to lack the self-awareness to realize this. Just look at all the guys who scream "political correctness" and get hyper combative when the subject of gender in games come up. As the Errant Signal video says - they think they are being apolitical, and just saying "that's the way the world naturally is" - when they are actually arguing from a very skewed worldview.

In short, I think it's the biggest partisans who want to shut down any discussion of politics in games.

 

[Jumwa]

Yeah...

I'm siding with the real Julian Assange on this one. The movie is a glorified smear campaign, and holds almost zero accuracy.

When the British Prime Minister, one of the people most hurt by WikiLeaks' actions, calls the film about the leader of WikiLeaks a "Masterpiece", something has gone horribly fucking wrong.

Indeed.

This seems like a perfect centerpiece to the personal attacks on Assange, turning what should be a debate on government transparency into an issue of a single man's personality. Based on a very one-sided depiction of that man's personality to boot.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Yeah...

I'm siding with the real Julian Assange on this one. The movie is a glorified smear campaign, and holds almost zero accuracy.

When the British Prime Minister, one of the people most hurt by WikiLeaks' actions, calls the film about the leader of WikiLeaks a "Masterpiece", something has gone horribly fucking wrong.

Admittedly, I don't actually know enough about Julian Assange's personal history to judge the accuracy of this film. However, if you're going to call out a piece of art as character assassination, you need more to go on than 'somebody who probably doesn't like Julian Assange very much likes this film'.

I believe that people in positions of power should be held accountable for the mistakes they make, just like any other citizen, and the people who operate Wikileaks stand in a unique position to hold said people accountable when they try to cover up their transgressions. As far as that line of reasoning goes, I have respect for the movement's motives.

However, on the other side of the coin, 'accountability' is exactly the problem I have with Wikileaks and Assange himself. He, and they, take it upon themselves to compile information that is extremely sensitive to the national security of several nations charge with the protection of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. It cannot be overstated just how much power an organisation like Wikileaks can hold; and they hold it, actively revelling in the fact that they are beholden to no rule of law or any body that could possibly enforce one. Granted, they wouldn't be able to do what they do if they were, but that doesn't make the situation any less concerning. They can hold others accountable, but they have no accountability themselves.

Wikileaks is a faceless body of individuals. More faceless in fact, than any government of corporation I know of. Within that body I'm sure there are people who merely want to see those in power stand up and be counted, and who wouldn't go so far as to put innocent lives at risk to see that happen. I am equally sure that there are others who do not take the responsibility of what they hold in their hands so seriously. As for Assange himself, I am not certain, although I doubt he is a saint. Regardless, to blanket-label a bunch of people you don't know as "heroes" is naive. I would be one of the last to claim that our current mainstream new outlets have no room for improvement. I do however, sleep easily knowing that if the BBC or CNN or even FOX decided one day that they would knowingly and recklessly put innocent lives at risk just for the sake of sticking it to The Man, someone would answer for it in a court of law.

 

[saintdane05]

Really, the reason I know about this film is because it has Sexiest man Alive Benedict Cumberbatch in it.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I do however, sleep easily knowing that if the BBC or CNN or even FOX decided one day that they would knowingly and recklessly put innocent lives at risk just for the sake of sticking it to The Man, someone would answer for it in a court of law.

Thanks for the laugh - that's really hilarious.

They probably would face court for "sticking it to the man" - but they likely won't if they do it "sticking up for the man" as they typically do.

But your comment is still funny, with both the notion that they would upset the status-quo, and that they are held accountable for their actions. The BBC most likely an exception, but as far as CNN and Fox, there's very little likelihood of them either rocking the boat, or being held accountable.

 

[Farther than stars]

A fine article, except that it's "its", not "it's". But more importantly, I think it's probably not a useful thing to claim ideological neutrality, since that, of course, brings with it the trappings of not being able to recognize one's own subjectivity in specific situations. For instance, going for the 'what works' approach is itself a sub-stream of pragmatism that is either fiercely or partially opposed by other philosophical and/or religious viewpoints. Also the idea that 'consistency' is a bad thing, or at least unrealistic, points to a value judgement that places a progressive approach over a conservative one and thereby also denotes certain political sympathies.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Also the idea that 'consistency' is a bad thing or at least unrealistic points to a value judgement that places a progressive approach over a conservative one and thereby also denotes certain political sympathies.

What makes 'consistency' more of a progressive value than a conservative one, or vice-versa?

 

[Varrdy]

Am I the only person who loathes Assange and all his WikiLeaks cronies?

 

[maxben]

Also the idea that 'consistency' is a bad thing or at least unrealistic points to a value judgement that places a progressive approach over a conservative one and thereby also denotes certain political sympathies.

What makes 'consistency' more of a progressive value than a conservative one, or vice-versa?

Because psychologically, conservatism is meant to represent putting things in boxes of good and evil while progressives are meant to be more grey-area folk.
This is obviously not true when you look at certain groups on either side (live and let live libertarians versus hardcore socialists fighting evil), but that's one of the findings in psychological research on political affiliation.