So the latest right-wing meme is, "there's no difference between what the Murdochs did and what Wikileaks did."
Uhm, excuse me? First, let's look at what the Morlocks did. They hacked into the voice mail of a child kidnapping victim so that they could create a more sensationalist story to use to scare people into accepting tyranny in order to "keep the children safe". They also hacked into the personal phones of the Royal Family, attempted to hack the phones of 9/11 victims, and otherwise hacked into the phones of ordinary people. Furthermore, all this was being done for profit. Profiting from the tragedies of others is what jackals, hyenas, and vultures do -- and you'll note that none of those critters have good PR.
Meanwhile, whoever leaked those cables to Wikileaks leaked information that already belonged to We The People, that was being kept from us by people who had no right to keep that information from us. Those cables were between government officials who were supposedly representing We The People. Furthermore, whoever divulged these cables did so not for profit, but because he believed that We The People deserved to know what our government was actually doing, as vs. what it said it was doing. Divulging information that we already own as a public service is a quite different thing entirely from invading the privacy of ordinary people for profit.
Why do right wingers continually bring up these false equivalencies? It's as if you're talking about cars, and suddenly they say "it's not true that a Jeep is the best offroad vehicle, because a burro will go places that a Jeep won't go." Uhm, yeah. But we were talking about cars, not critters. Just as, with the Morlock stuff, we're talking about spying on ordinary people, not about divulging information already owned by We The People. Apples. Bicycles. Just sayin'.
-- Badtux the Equivalencies Penguin