Another day - another example of a story twisted to suit the political bias of the outlet.
Wikileaks has been (and will continue to be) a controversial matter, each person that reads about it has their own opinion on it. News outlets, however small or relatively insignificant, will - without fail - protest their innocence with regards to sway and favour, so how can two apparently factual reports leap to such differing conclusions as the examples of PBS and Forbes? Forbes' articles on the saga are, whether justified or not, grotesquely biased in favour of Assange and his plans, while PBS recently aired a stinging documentary deriding and criticising the founder and the idea behind WikiLeaks.
While I couldn't possibly condone or condemn any act of civil disobedience, else I'd be practicing exactly what I'm saying Forbes and PBS shouldn't, I did enjoy seeing PBS' website subjected to an alarmingly efficient hack in which the attackers posted a false story on Tupac Shakur. Taking the personal bias out of this, I enjoyed seeing the success of such an obviously false news story as the rapper trended on Twitter. If a rabble of computer hackers can present such an overtly falsified story as fact and get away with it, imagine what PBS and Forbes can do to suit their own respective agendas; be it slamming the notion of freedom of press and transparent politics in PBS' case, or glorifying criminals and painting a dramatic Robin Hood-style portrait of hackers in Forbes' case.