Julian Assange Wikileaks Marketing Genius
Politics / US Politics Dec 06, 2010 - 06:38 AM GMTBy: Gary_North
To understand what WikiLeaks has done, we must understand economic cause and effect. Let us begin with a comparable market: the market for gambling.
Governments have laws against gambling. Why? The justification is moral principles. This reason is less persuasive, once the government sets up state lotteries and also licenses taxable gambling, such as horse racing. The real reason is the governments want to monopolize the vice. They expect greater tax revenues.
Governments arrest bookies. But bookies are merely providers of the service. The source of demand is the individual gambler: the guy who is placing the bets. The infrastructure that delivers the service is surely basic to the process, but it is the individual citizen who is the prime mover. Why? He is paying for it.
Want to understand the process? Follow the money. It ends with the customer.
The government prosecutes the bookie because it is cheaper than following the money to the sources. It's a matter of the economies of scale. But it is hypocritical to blame the bookie. It is cheaper to arrest and try him than to arrest and try all of his customers, but he is not the source of the practice. Customers are.
Back to WikiLeaks. Who is the source of the problem? Readers of articles about the scandals. This is gossip for educated people. This is Jerry Springer for college graduates. This is "You know what she said about him?"
Readers are going to websites: plural. They are not going to WikiLeaks' site. They are going to the "bookies'" sites: The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the New York Times. These are the national "newspapers of record." These are the Establishment's main news sources in the West.
Do you see what Julian Assange has done? He has pitted one against another. He gives them first shot at the leaked documents for a few days. Then he releases them to everyone. "Want a scoop? I'll provide it. Want to be an also-ran? Just sit on the story." He has them salivating for the next release. The papers have staffers ready to read, write, and post.
This strategy is working. The Establishment press is all over these stories.
The public, Pavlovian to the core, can't wait to get the next bit of gossip. "And then she said this!"
This is National Enquirer for the literati.
Obama's spokesmen are playing it cool. This is wise on his part. Meanwhile, what we might call the Lieberman/Huckabee/Palin axis is going ballistic. "We must stop WikiLeaks!"
Really? Why bother with WikiLeaks? Just arrest the editors and publishers of the outlets – the major Establishment media. If all those government-funded official leakers (spies) are at risk, then the source of this risk is the Establishment media.
But the critics cannot arrest the editors and publishers. The ACLU would go into action. So would the other Establishment media. "This is a freedom of the press issue! This is a first amendment issue." This is a hits-on-our-site issue.
When The Guardian did a live interview with Assange on December 3, it got so much Web traffic that the site went down.
The incensed critics are not about to stick their fingers into this media hornets' nest. So, they call for Assange's head. Why? Economies of scale. It is cheaper to shut down WikiLeaks' site.
But this does little good. The mirror sites are too numerous. There is no way to stop the flow of information on the Web. WikiLeaks is proving this, day by day.
If the mirror sites go down, there will be FedEx deliveries to the Establishment outlets of thumb drives filled with data. Do you think the media outlets will exercise self-restraint, when they know that the others have also received FedEx packages? I don't think so.
The U.S. government's attempts to shut down WikiLeaks, as Assange knew in advance, is creating enormous publicity for WikiLeaks. This makes it even less likely that any of the Establishment media outlets is going to cease publishing stories based on the leaks. "And then she said. . . !"
The problem is this: the public loves the gossip. It delights in hearing about the latest blunder. This is a feeding frenzy. It is boosting traffic. The press has never been able to resist this, once a single member of the Establishment breaks ranks.
A generation ago, the Establishment media sat on Daniel Ellsberg's purloined documents for weeks. The New York Times began its report on June 14, 1971. The Washington Post followed on June 18. It took until June 26 for 15 more to join in the bonanza.
Gary North [send him mail ] is the author of Mises on Money . Visit http://www.garynorth.com . He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible .
© 2010 Copyright Gary North / LewRockwell.com - All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
