There is something deliberately pointed about the choice of venue. An organisation that most American reporters had never dealt with hired a room a few blocks from the White House and played them a classified recording made by their own military.
The setting
The National Press Club is an ordinary professional institution in Washington where organisations hold press conferences. Booking it was not a technical necessity; the files could have simply appeared online. It was a statement that this was journalism being conducted in public, not a data dump.
Who presented it
Julian Assange presented in person, alongside colleagues who had worked on the file. He took questions.
What they showed
The seventeen-minute edited version, with captions, arrows identifying people in the frame, and an opening quotation setting a frame for what followed. At the same time, the full recording of roughly thirty-nine minutes went online, along with supporting material.
What else was published that day
They named the two Reuters staff, described the three engagements, and set out the three-year history of Reuters trying and failing to obtain the recording.
| Published that day | Length | Who watched it |
|---|---|---|
| Edited version, captioned | ~17 minutes | Almost everyone |
| Full recording | ~39 minutes | A small minority |
The reaction that morning
The gap between those two groups is roughly where public opinion on the war settled, and it has not moved much since. Questions in the room were mostly about provenance and editing. Where did it come from. How do you know it is real. Why have you cut it. Why have you called it that.
Those turned out to be exactly the questions the next several years would be spent on, which says something about the instincts of the reporters present.
How fast it moved
That last figure is the one that mattered most in the following weeks. A leak can be neutralised by casting doubt on it. This one could not be, because the material was genuine, the verification had been done, and everyone involved knew it.
What the US government said
Officials confirmed the footage was authentic and pointed to the 2007 investigation, which had found the crews acted within the rules of engagement. The position was, in effect: this is real, it was looked at, and it was closed.
That answer worked with some audiences and not at all with others, and the gap between those two groups is roughly where public opinion on this case still sits.
The official position, in one line
This is real, it was looked at, and it was closed. That answer satisfied some audiences completely and others not at all, and the gap between those two groups is roughly where opinion on this case still sits.
- Authenticity: confirmed, not disputed.
- Investigation: already done, internally, in 2007.
- Further action: none.
Why not simply post it
The organisation had a website and an audience. It could have uploaded two files and let them travel. Holding an event instead was a choice with consequences in both directions.
It bought attention that an upload would not have got. Wire reporters were in the room, which meant the story went out through established channels within hours rather than percolating through forums for a week. It also allowed the material to be explained, the verification to be described, and the three-year history of refusals to be put on the record in front of people whose job was to write it down.
What it cost was distance. By standing at a lectern and arguing a case, the publisher became a character in the story. An anonymous file has no spokesman to attack. This one did, and within days a good deal of the coverage was about him.
What the title did to the coverage
Within about a week the story had partly changed subject. A great deal of the commentary was no longer about a street in Baghdad but about whether WikiLeaks had been fair, whether the edit was honest, and whether the name was propaganda.
That shift is worth watching closely, because it has repeated with almost every piece of leaked conflict footage since. The strongest way to blunt a piece of evidence is not to deny it but to make the argument about the person who produced it. How the press handled it covers this in detail.
What 5 April 2010 actually settled
It did not settle the law. No case followed, no inquiry was reopened, and nobody was charged over anything in the recording.
What it did not settle
What it settled was an expectation. Before that morning, the gunsight view of a war was something the public simply did not have access to, and largely did not think to ask for. After it, there was a plain precedent: this material exists, it can be understood by ordinary people, and withholding it is a choice rather than a fact of nature.
Every leaked drone clip and cockpit recording argued over since has been received in a world that watched this one first. That inheritance is the subject here.
Questions people ask about this
Where was the video released?
Did the US government say the video was fake?
Was the full recording released too?
Where this comes from
- WikiLeaks — WikiLeaks
- July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike — Wikipedia
- Reuters news archive — Thomson Reuters
Spotted something wrong? Tell us and we will fix it.
