>>481838Absolute monarchs used to torture their critics too, it did not help them stay in power. They might have traded embarrassment of whistleblower revelations for something much worse. The concept of making the state compliant to criticism wasn't a naive aspirational virtue, it was a shrewd strategical adaptation after absolute monarchies broke down. What they have done is preserve the position of some careerists at the expense of institutional integrity.
People who are competent and want to get stuff done, seek out organizations that are benevolent and likely to illicit voluntary cooperation from others. Malevolent organizations are sought by bullies that want to get away with bullying.
Assange was very mindful to not release information that could do serious damage, by exercising revenge, they may have incentivized the next guy to do as much damage as possible as to destroy the ability to take revenge. Keep in mind that they did
send a message, but it wasn't interpreted uniformly. Intimidation may elicit compliance by some, but to others it signals weakness.
Investigative journalism was never a detriment to state-power. It kept the base and the superstructure in alignment, damaging journalism was foolish and bad statecraft.
Like when Blinken blamed social media and implies
<when we controlled the media we could do genocide in peace.He doesn't seem to understand the causal connection. People turned away from mainstream media first in order for alternatives to become possible. If they hadn't gone down the drain, people wouldn't have tuned out.