
The bleak, mountainous terrain and quiet, lonely roads set the tone for this compelling venture into the heart of 'the Stans'. The first stop is Asia Plus, a newspaper in Tajikistan. "If we were to talk too freely about our taboos, what kind of taboo would that be?" asks the Editor-in-Chief, Marat Mamadshoev, with a smile. "We'd rather get approval from our superior first..." he says nervously. "The Washington DC overlord of Asia Plus!" Given the go-ahead, the team pours over... (Full plot summary below)
Enjoy FREE movies and series with your Prime (USA) subscription or when you start a 30-day free trial!
Links compiled using automated software. Availability of offers subject to change / might be region specific / out of date.
Sorry, we can't find any suggestions at the moment.
The bleak, mountainous terrain and quiet, lonely roads set the tone for this compelling venture into the heart of 'the Stans'. The first stop is Asia Plus, a newspaper in Tajikistan. "If we were to talk too freely about our taboos, what kind of taboo would that be?" asks the Editor-in-Chief, Marat Mamadshoev, with a smile. "We'd rather get approval from our superior first..." he says nervously. "The Washington DC overlord of Asia Plus!" Given the go-ahead, the team pours over the material. Speaking over Skype, Assange warns, "Read all of it. If you go searching for particular things you will bring your own prejudice to the material." But as the Wikileaks team move on to their next meeting, soon the call comes, "the problem is that there are many things in the cables that we cannot publish...because we will get into trouble". At the offices of the Kazakh Telegraph Agency the team receive a more frosty reception. "Why have you come here? If an unskilled man gets access to this data it will lead to anarchy!" Editor-in-Chief of the magazine 'Expert Kazakhstan' says with a shrug, "You are wasting your life in vain. Nothing will come out of it." After an arduous trek, back in their UK base the team take stock. "These boundaries of free speech, they look different in different countries, but they always exist in one way or another." In London and Washington the Editors-in-Chief of The Guardian and the New York Times speak frankly about the issues of "protecting individuals" and "self-censorship" and making tough decisions about whether or not to publish leaked government data. Sitting in front of a wall of framed pictures of US Presidents and politicians, Bill Keller discusses how, "a lot of presidents and foreign ministers...troop through here...to air their views". A potent road map of the fragile connections between the press, the public and the silent powers that control them.
Leave your thoughts about Mediastan.
| User ReviewBoris SI read a review online from a guy who said the movie was so boring, that he watched only the first twenty minutes, and then gave up. Then he reviewed the movie on his blog and that review gets top hits on google search - it's not just sad, it is a disservice, that some guy who hasn't got the patience and intellect to watch the whole movie, gets his review read thousands of times a day probably. But I guess on the internet, it is prudent to remember: YMMV. This movie rewards people who seek the truth, to whom that search is important enough that they will take an interest and observe reality patiently. Initially, the movie appears to be just a "road movie," but as it goes along, it starts to dawn on you what it's really about: not just the third world media, but even the supposed free western media are very much in the pockets of vested interests - either because of money or because of political interest. The editor of the Guardian is interviewed, and he basically admits that he can't publish the truth about some Russian oligarchs, because his paper would get sued, and the Guardian cannot afford to get sued (apparently in England, freedom of the press is at the mercy of lawsuits). The most precious scene, near the end of the film - perhaps it is a climax! - is set in the offices of the New York Times, where our WikiLeaks team is interviewing the Editor (in Chief?). As he blathers on about how free he is to publish anything he likes, the camera roams around the room, capturing such gems as a photo of him with Obama, signed by Obama, etc. Illustrating how an unbiased editorial position is impossible here, when you are apparently good friends with the president. Like a cherry on top of the cake, there is an unscripted moment, where another editor sticks his head in the room, and congratulations are exchanged on how nicely some article on Clinton came out (or maybe it was Obama, I can't recall, and don't have the reference at hand right this minute, and I can't find it online!). Anyway, the upshot is, it all fit perfectly. Without any narration at all, Assange's film argues very eloquently and convincingly that media in all countries, East or West, are corruptible, if not already corrupted. In a world where information is power, institutions like WikiLeaks recover some of that power for the little people. |
| User ReviewMatt OReveals how most news sources will brag about being "democratic", "the voice of the people", or "independent" while in reality they have overlords in Washington DC who's permission they need (and typically never get) to publish articles that would enlighten the public to government and corporate corruption using Wikileaks sources. |