
Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously - marcloney
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/
======
steve19
What is the difference between Stratfor and the WSJ or Economist? They all are
relatively expensive publications that provide information only to subscribers
and not the general public. The author seems to be upset that Stratfor was
making a lot of money.

Startfor is not the only private intelligence group. _IHS Inc._ [0] owns
_Jane's Information Group_ (defense/strategic intelligence) [1] and _iSuppli_
(industrial intelligence). In my opinion Jane's publications and subscriptions
are way overpriced.

The book _Jane's All the World's Aircraft (2012)_ costs well over $1300 on
_Amazon_ [2]. I doubt there is anything in there that you can't find on
Wikipedia (or, if not, a quick Google search). That does not stop every
mil/intel office worldwide buying a copy of the latest edition each year.
Their customers seem to like having all the latest information in a big heavy
book. There is no point in hating on Jane's for providing a product that is
demanded by the public.

So Stratfor does marketing to enhance their image and increase their
subscriber base, what businesses don't?

I am not interested in subscribing to Stratfor, but I don't hate on them for
meeting consumer demand.

[0] <http://www.ihs.com/>

[1] <http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx>

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Janes-All-Worlds-
Aircraft-2011-2012/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Janes-All-Worlds-
Aircraft-2011-2012/dp/0710629559/)

 _Edit: Added Links. Clarified thought._

~~~
fpp
This article - besides what was already rightly said that it lacks substance
and is full of lame comparisons - is downplaying Stratfor's role and influence
on many decision makers in governments and industry.

This seems to be in line with Stratfor's own defense strategy against the
Wikileak email publications - make yourself small, discredit your opponent
(next step / previously happened already by others), downplay the importance
of the information revealed and doubt the accuracy / genuineness of the
material - claim that it might have been altered (what nobody but insiders can
proof right or wrong).

In general reduce exposure and get it out of the spotlight asap (see
Stratfor's press release at: [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/stratfor-statement-o...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/stratfor-statement-on-wikileaks-140524033.html) )

You can say what you want about "The Atlantic" - but the quality of their
journalistic work has always been kept to an high standard at least in
previous years. I would be (very) surprised if they don't have a
subscription/copy of Stratfor's information services themselves given their
interest and coverage of geo-political topics.

If "Stratfor is a joke" so why have they so happily quoted from their analysis
material in the past?

~~~
tptacek
While Andrew Sullivan was writing his blog under The Atlantic's masthead, he
regularly quoted Stratfor. Andrew Sullivan is a tool, was a tool long before
he wrote for The Atlantic, and no longer writes for the Atlantic.

Apart from Andrew Sullivan's blog, I found exactly one other instance of
Stratfor on The Atlantic (except articles either talking about Stratfor being
hacked or articles talking about Stratfor being a joke): in James Fallows'
blog, once.

My conclusion is that The Atlantic does not happily quote from Stratfor's
"analysis material".

~~~
ajays
A quick Google search confirms your claim, at least for his new blog on The
Daily Beast:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=stratfor+site:andrewsullivan...](https://www.google.com/search?q=stratfor+site:andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)

------
freshhawk
I can see why this would seem over-hyped and stupid to someone with experience
and contempt for STRATFOR already.

And so far I haven't heard anything worth the "BIG NEWS COMING" hype from
wikileaks.

It's still too dismissive of the benefits of the leak. As some commenters
point out: maybe the people with no access to anyone, who are the targets of
amateurs like STRATFOR would like to know what's going on.

Whatever they are, they are exposed now. Seems irrationally condescending to
be so dismissive, it's not in line with the evidence presented. Contempt from
a "real reporter" towards Wikileaks? It weakens his argument.

------
tytso
Stratfor subscriptions do are _not_ $40k a year. The article was being very
misleading on that point, saying that this was what the price was in 2001.
Perhaps that was because the subscrition page on Startfor was still down, but
when I subscribed, it was something like $200 or so a year --- it was less
than the cost of WSJ.

What I get out of Stratfor, and why I read it, is not "secret intelligence
information", but _analysis_. It may not be as good as what the CIA has, but
that's because it truly doesn't have access to "secret intelligence
information". But at least they are trying to make sense of facts! Unlike the
New York Times, which acts as a stenographer for the White House (the White
House has leaked information from the CIA saying their analysts are sure Iraq
had weapons of mass distruction, therefore it must be true) or for politicians
(where Arthur Brisbane was caught wondering whether it was OK to label
statements form political candidates that were false as not being true in
newspaper articles, or whether newspapers should just run the quote), or the
Television Evening News, which trot out "retired generals" who are still on
the consulting payroll of the Pentagon without disclosing that fact. If I want
the party line from the politicos, I know where to get it.

Not that I take Stratfor's conclusions as gospel --- I don't take the Times,
the Economist, or other sources as gospel either. But hopefully by reading all
of that, I can have a more informed view of the world. Other than satisfying
my own curiosity, I have the naive and old fashioned view that being well
informed is the responsibility of each and every citizen of a democracy ---
and that means getting information and analysis from multiple sources, and
then coming to my own conclusions.

------
AngrySkillzz
This article seems a bit heavy on derision and low on content/evidence.

~~~
dmix
The media is about having "angles" these days. Having extreme opinions in
order make things interesting. Content is secondary.

------
revelation
Sorry, but Stratfor are routinely much, much better than everything the
standard media delivers as "investigative research" these days, of which there
isn't much to begin with. I go to newspaper sites when I want to read a
rewritten version of some newswire release.

Also, people are complaining that Stratfor has a paid network of informants?
Every serious newspaper should. Instead they have "anonymous government
officials" denouncing people as terrorist per government propaganda. See for
example <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4492>

~~~
tptacek
Well, "anonymous government officials" and people like Anthony Shadid and and
Marie Colvin. How many Stratfor people died getting the story out of Syria?

------
m_for_monkey
I don't see it as if Wikileaks were fooled, they have debunked Stratfor, the
"money-making scheme". They sell nothing for a fortune, I hope their
subscribers will leave them.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
_I don't see it as if Wikileaks were fooled_

I do - Assange branded this leak as far more momentous and STRATFOR as much
more insidious than it is. The "secret cash bribes" are his wording, after
all.

I was a corporate subscriber of STRATFOR's. _The Atlantic_ is a bit harsh
here, but it's harsh on STRATFOR promoting its brand as a "shadow CIA". That
specific complaint is fair.

We never commissioned investigation from them, but I was quite happy with
analysis we had them write up for us on how the US was likely to react to
various situations. For example, they were the first source to bring it to my
attention that for all the wailing about Putin messing with the Russian
elections, the "true" winners were the right nationalist parties. CIA intel?
No. But potentially worth knowing to judge the region's investment climate
stability? Probably.

For deep digging I'd go to Kroll, IGI, Dilligence, etc. If Anonymous and pals
could get into _their_ servers I'd be legitimately impressed.

------
alister
The very first leaked Stratfor email I looked at just now (see below) seems to
have the same level of detail and passionate debate that we Hackernews types
get into when we're discussing crypto policy or the design of network
protocols.

I've never before read anything from Stratfor, and I was willing to accept the
OP's assertion that they slap together public data, but seeing this one email
makes me already doubt the OP. Do editors at The Atlantic and The Economist
have intricate discussions about Medvedev vs Timoshenko to figure out Putin's
actions?

    
    
      From: "Marc Lanthemann"
      To: "Alpha List"
      Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
      Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
    
      CODE: UA111
      PUBLICATION: yes
      ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
      SOURCE DESCRIPTION: A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
      SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
      ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
      DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
      HANDLER: Lauren
    
      Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
      But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
      this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
      begin with.
    
      You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
      power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
      Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
      solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
      Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
      easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
      her in trouble and arrested.
    
      But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
      respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
      made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
      deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
      Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
      the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
      military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
      it had been pushing for.
    
      So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
      the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
      to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
      demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.
    
      Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
      to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
      against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
      will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.
    
      --
    
      Lauren Goodrich
      Senior Eurasia Analyst
      STRATFOR
      T: 512.744.4311
      F: 512.744.4334
      lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
      www.stratfor.com

~~~
tptacek
You may have a point. It is hard to find intricate discussions of Timoshenko
and Medvedev. You have to know about news.google.com, and how to spell both of
their names.

Seriously, though: remember also, because Stratfor is not a legit journalism
outpost, they can spice up their output in ways that e.g. Reuters, The
Economist, and Bloomberg can't. Bloomberg can't write "Medvedev has never
liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no respect..." without an
attributable source. Stratfor, on the other hand, can just make shit like this
up, or source from random people who are themselves just making shit up.

~~~
revelation
None of that ever ends up in the actual articles, but you would know that had
you read any of them.

And I admire your naive belief in "legit journalism outposts". Knee-deep in
two wars and you didn't ever learn why.

------
golden_apples
Well, the article plays on the "Coca-Cola spying on PETA" email, which is a
little pathetic and hardly a smoking gun showing dirty behind-the-scenes
tricks. But thats par for the course when it comes to corporate "intelligence"
on subculture-based movements like animal rights. People in those movements
know that the enemy is spying on them, but often times it seems like the
corporate/military interests don't have a clue about anything going on...
until something big like the Brandon Darby entrapment scheme comes up.

I would be interested in seeing what information of substance people find in
the Stratfor leak, but its not going to be on issues like this.

------
beedogs
This is a horribly-written hit piece.

------
kungfooguru
This guy is just missing the point of the leaks as well. Some of which is
revealed in these emails about Wikileaks itself
<http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releases.html>

------
Intermernet
Hi Everyone, I'm seeing a lot of talk of Anonymous in relation to this leak
but there's no mention of them on <http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html> at
all that I can find.

Can someone point me to the info that shows they were involved? I may be
suffering from internet blindness :-)

EDIT: Never mind, found it :-) must have had a Ctrl-F fail.

