What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Down the Rabbit Hole: Finding ‘Evidence’ of WikiLeaks’ Crime—Part II of II

August 21, 2010, 8:10 PM

Building on yesterday’s post, today I examine some more implications of the claim made by The Times of London that it found the names of Afghan informants in the secret war logs released by WikiLeaks. In particular, what is the veracity of The Times’ claims? And what about the moral culpability of newspapers who have criticized WikiLeaks, but also cooperated in the release of allegedly harmful information.

 The Times of London said it found Afghan informant identities in files released by WikiLeaks in two hours. Really, two hours? The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel each had a month with the data and found nothing of similar magnitude, not to mention the time WikiLeaks spent reading and searching the data. Why hasn’t The Times of London been specific about which reports contain this alleged information? The records are public, after all. And if their intent is to protect those named in the reports, why haven’t they cooperated with official sources like the Pentagon so that charges can be brought against WikiLeaks either in a domestic American court or an international court with broader jurisdiction? For all the talk of right and wrong, nobody has been very willing to go after the wrongdoer. Julian Assange has appeared on the NBC’s Today Show with Meredith Vieira and sat for interviews with CNN. He isn’t exactly keeping a low profile, hoping that this charge will just blow over. Some would say he enjoys the limelight. Whether he does or doesn’t, why haven’t charges been brought? It’s strange that the obvious answer sounds almost conspiratorial—that no Afghan informant names were released and these accusations are an extension of a bankrupt Western press in coordination with hypocritical governments.

Another way in which the Western press often seems bankrupt, besides its failure to fact check important assertions, is morally so, particularly The New York Times. The Times’ moral stance against WikiLeaks publication was not linking to the documents in its story on them. Assange was correct to call this behavior ‘pusillanimous’. If The Times feels it is operating in a vague moral world as it acts as a conduit for information that might or might not serve the public, fine, but if it says it objects to WikiLeak’s release of the documents (which was in large party the story of the WikiLeaks release), then have a little backbone, why don’t you?

The point goes toward a larger one, that of moral responsibility. Merely reporting on an issue that is surrounded by moral questions isn’t good enough anymore. Perhaps it was at one time, but today (as I’ve documented) when organizations use news media as a medium to fight public opinion wars, an ‘objective’ telling of events is most likely the least true.


Down the Rabbit Hole: Findi...

Newsletter: Share: