"they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material."
My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint.
Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here -- the Gawker article you linked to makes it clear that Wikileaks did not cut/edit the video.
Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
Wikileaks presented the video as "full & uncut" and Gawker called them out on it. Notice they didn't mention the 30min was removed when promoting that video..they had to be called out on it.
Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.
My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint.
Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.