DanielEllsberg. Daniel Ellsberg's Website — Daniel Ellsberg Fears WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange’s Life In. Daniel Ellsberg Says He Fears US Might Assassinate W. RATIGAN: Do you see direct parallels between what’s developing here and what you went through? ELLSBURG: Yes, there does seem to be an immediate parallel between me and whoever leaked the video on the assault on the 19 or 20 Iraqis.
Someone–allegedly, it was Bradley Manning–did feel that that deserved to be out. the “Reuters,” whose newspapermen were killed in the course of that, had been trying to get that through the freedom of information act for two years, as I understand it and had been refused. Let’s say whoever did it, hypothetically, Bradley Manning, showed better judgment in putting it out than the people who kept is secret from the American people and from the Iraqis.
RATIGAN: What is your sense of disclosure of information to the American people today, compared to the period of time that you lived through, where there was similar issues with, with the perception of reality of information being withheld from the public? RATIGAN: Phillip, what is your understand of where Mr. Video: Wikileaks Julian Assange Daniel Ellsberg at P. Daniel Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is an activist and former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 along with other charges of theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years.
Due to gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973. Ellsberg was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006. He is also known for popularizing part of decision theory, the Ellsberg paradox. Early life and career[edit] On his return from South Vietnam, Ellsberg resumed working at RAND. The Pentagon Papers[edit] Documentary Film about Daniel Ellsberg, from Judith Ehrlich. The Most Dangerous Man In America (Trailer HQ 2010) The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg paradox. The Ellsberg paradox is a paradox in decision theory in which people's choices violate the postulates of subjective expected utility.[1] It is generally taken to be evidence for ambiguity aversion. The paradox was popularized by Daniel Ellsberg, although a version of it was noted considerably earlier by John Maynard Keynes.[2] The basic idea is that people overwhelmingly prefer taking on risk in situations where they know specific odds rather than an alternate risk scenario in which the odds are completely ambiguous—they will always choose a known probability of winning over an unknown probability of winning even if the known probability is low and the unknown probability could be a guarantee of winning.
That is, given a choice of risks to take (such as bets), people "prefer the devil they know" rather than assuming a risk where odds are difficult or impossible to calculate.[3] The 1 urn paradox[edit] Utility theory interpretation[edit] Mathematical demonstration[edit] where See also[edit] MediasServitude to government GleenGreenw. (updated below) A newly released study from students at Harvard’s John F.
Kennedy School of Government provides the latest evidence of how thoroughly devoted the American establishment media is to amplifying and serving (rather than checking) government officials. This new study examines how waterboarding has been discussed by America’s four largest newspapers over the past 100 years, and finds that the technique, almost invariably, was unequivocally referred to as “torture” — until the U.S. Government began openly using it and insisting that it was not torture, at which time these newspapers obediently ceased describing it that way: Similarly, American newspapers are highly inclined to refer to waterboarding as “torture” when practiced by other nations, but will suddenly refuse to use the term when it’s the U.S. employing that technique: As always, the American establishment media is simply following in the path of the U.S.
None of this is a surprise, of course. Waterboarding intheMedia pdf Harvard. About Us - Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Pu. The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy is a Harvard University research center dedicated to exploring and illuminating the intersection of press, politics and public policy in theory and practice. The Center strives to bridge the gap between journalists and scholars, and between them and the public.
Through teaching and research at the Kennedy School of Government and its program of visiting fellows, conferences and initiatives, the Center is at the forefront of its area of inquiry. To learn more about the Shorenstein Center, visit the pages dedicated to our history, director and staff, and the fellows, faculty, courses and events that enliven the academic year. POV - The Most Dangerous Man in America . Video: The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg and <em><strong>The New York Times</strong></em> Panel Discussion. On September 13, 2010, The New York Times Community Affairs Department and POV presented a panel discussion on the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, and the Times. The conversation, featuring Daniel Ellsberg, Max Frankel, former New York Times executive editor, and Adam Liptak, New York Times Supreme Court reporter, was moderated by Jill Abramson, managing editor of The New York Times.
Jill Abramson: Good evening, everybody. I think we're gonna have a lively panel and a discussion of the very interesting film, The Most Dangerous Man in America. And seated right next to me, uh-oh, is the most dangerous man in America! I'll introduce to you— Daniel Ellsberg. Dan, at the point you took the Pentagon Papers to Neil Sheehan, you had tried to interest anti-war Democrats in looking into them. Daniel Ellsberg: I was. And — really, by that time, I felt — there wasn't a lot of promise in putting these out because they dealt with— Abramson: Right, old history.
Ellsberg: —the Democrats. Frankel: Ten.