M is to always go directly to the source. Therefore I have now lately some of the rather arbitrary "secret " with out referred to Newsflashes one of the newly created Wikileaks mirrors to mind - that is also highly recommended, but I would nevertheless again to my thesis of the previous post come back. Assange is a brave man to whom in terms of what he takes upon himself deserves great respect. No doubt. Also it may be that Wikileaks is in possession of documents that could actually exert a greater impact.
belong but since the recent scandals to Wikileaks? This can be beweifeln. Because they do only if the information for the people who get really accept the status of scandals. The real issue is the formula for Luhmann Information: information arises when a message is ripped by a difference to the previously known or suspected reality. But: is this so? Was created by the recent publications that difference, or they are not confirmed but the general picture of our current political culture? For our current perception of the (previously published) documents are still really half baked.
Not so "Wetten dass ..?" Of the accident at other hand, was in this sense, Luhmann's new information: here was a rift between expectation and reality.
Whether this gap opens up even with Wikileaks, and I'm me, at least in the recent publications, not so sure. It seems imperative, therefore, also be relevant and interesting actually, what happened to Assange yourself: This will be ultimately perhaps the real scandal Wikileaks'. So it is finally the question as perceived by the opponents of the recent revelations Wikileaks. Does it make a difference? If this were so, they would probably better off trying to act calmly. For perhaps the first will make the following responses to Wikileaks is now a real difference.
But there is also another dimension: What good is knowledge if it can not be contextualized? This is perhaps one of the really major dilemmas of mass media culture: the information is there. Only we can not not deal with it.
belong but since the recent scandals to Wikileaks? This can be beweifeln. Because they do only if the information for the people who get really accept the status of scandals. The real issue is the formula for Luhmann Information: information arises when a message is ripped by a difference to the previously known or suspected reality. But: is this so? Was created by the recent publications that difference, or they are not confirmed but the general picture of our current political culture? For our current perception of the (previously published) documents are still really half baked.
Not so "Wetten dass ..?" Of the accident at other hand, was in this sense, Luhmann's new information: here was a rift between expectation and reality.
Whether this gap opens up even with Wikileaks, and I'm me, at least in the recent publications, not so sure. It seems imperative, therefore, also be relevant and interesting actually, what happened to Assange yourself: This will be ultimately perhaps the real scandal Wikileaks'. So it is finally the question as perceived by the opponents of the recent revelations Wikileaks. Does it make a difference? If this were so, they would probably better off trying to act calmly. For perhaps the first will make the following responses to Wikileaks is now a real difference.
But there is also another dimension: What good is knowledge if it can not be contextualized? This is perhaps one of the really major dilemmas of mass media culture: the information is there. Only we can not not deal with it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment