This will hit wiki leaks. These news outlets won't be able to keep Anonymous and others out. The world will know.
Raw Snowden data didn't hit wikileaks. Don't bet on it.
Yet.
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
81–90 of 105 posts
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#82It's only day 1, and the ICIJ has said they have at least 14 days of "major revelations" mapped out in advance. I expect we'll be seeing stories from the Panama Papers for months to come, spaced out for maximum impact, similarly to Snowden's leaks. If a month goes by and not a single story is contrary to american corporate interests, the author's position may be reasonably supportable. But day 1? Not a chance. They w…
It's day 1 and the frontpage of El Pais (one of the major Spanish newspapers) only mentions Putin and Venezuela.
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#83That article is bullshit. Yes, we can't access the raw data - true, but understandable. The editor in-chief of the SZ says they are still working on it and will expose more and more "in waves", often getting statements from the accused before or sharing it with law enforcement agencies. And no, they didn't focus on Russia or Assad, one of the main revelations was that three members of Iceland's government (PM, financ…
Dude, you literally just proved his point: Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.
So far the revelations have indeed been "enemies of the West", ie. Russia, etc., Iceland, and some ancient Tory MPs and David Cameron's dead father.
Seems to me he called it pretty on the nose.
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#84I wouldn't be surprised if my bosses are implicated in this. They're a rich and powerful family with generational wealth. Will be interesting if the full leak is published and I can search their name myself.
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
A law firm whose sole business is establishing companies on paper in tax havens, so not quite your average firm.
With over 200000 shell companies created, you can be pretty sure not every shell company is involved in illegal activity. In fact, it's perfectly legal to create them, though the majority of their use cases is illegal. That still doesn't mean you can just dump private information like that on the internet
> the majority of their use cases is illegal.
Is there any evidence for this, like any studies that have been done? Or are you just propagating a myth here?
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#86The Guardian has its faults of course, but should it really be described as corporate media? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited Compared to say the Telegraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay Or the Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp
Craig Murray has not been shy of calling out The Guardian in the past: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/rusbridger-h...
His opinion is fairly extreme, though if you read carefully and follow the links in that post you might conclude that some of his concerns are at least worth bearing in mind.
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#87It's probably worth noting that the author (Craig Murray) is no apologist for non-Western dictators.
He was the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan until he decided that boiling people alive wasn't an interrogation method he believed a supposed UK ally should be using[1].
As such his views shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand. I think it is worth noting that the data isn't available yet. I'm sympathetic to the view that journalists should get a first look at the data. But be aware that the longer they promise "more revelations to come" the higher chance that the operation will get shut down.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolic...
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#88It's only day 1, and the ICIJ has said they have at least 14 days of "major revelations" mapped out in advance. I expect we'll be seeing stories from the Panama Papers for months to come, spaced out for maximum impact, similarly to Snowden's leaks. If a month goes by and not a single story is contrary to american corporate interests, the author's position may be reasonably supportable. But day 1? Not a chance. They w…
I can guarantee you at least two more heads of states tomorrow (European time): Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.
[deleted]
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#89This to me is almost bigger news than the leak itself. Its so obviously and blatantly stacked one can't help but conclude media has been thoroughly "captured".
On CNN, top news is about some soccer star charged with DUI. And nothing about this Panama thing on the home page.
Couldn't believe that but it absurdly true.
Checked British sites and it's splashed all across The Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, even Sky New and the Daily Mail. Each reporting it from multiple angles.
But the Washington Post has just: "The Panama Papers are super awkward for Beijing". ('super awkward'? really?) Couldn't find anything on The NYTimes front page. Fox has something at least.
Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak
#90I did find it peculiar that the focus of the leak was Russian wealthy associated with Putin. Curious to see if further leaks expose western wealthy.
Probably because the opportunities for gross corruption is much less in the west (though Italy might be an outlier) - and there are well established legal ways to shelter your assets.