You make some valid points, but I think Eco intends this as an amorphous investigation into how the Wikileaks events affect the prevailing Zeitgeist. His assertions aren't meant as hard truths, but as launching points for reflection and discussion.
Something like "The State Department doesn't know anything you can't learn in the newspaper" is clearly not a factual statement and Eco certainly knows this. It's hyperbole designed to emphasize the changing relationship between the populace and the state.
After all, Eco is foremost a craftsman of fiction and fantasy. I don't think it's off base for him to inject a bit of literary whimsy if it adds insight or enlivens the dialogue.
I said two things about his points, and you acknowledge only one of them. Yes, I think some of these arguments are dubious. But I think they're all banal. They're things anyone could have said about the US government 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
Something like "The State Department doesn't know anything you can't learn in the newspaper" is clearly not a factual statement and Eco certainly knows this. It's hyperbole designed to emphasize the changing relationship between the populace and the state.
After all, Eco is foremost a craftsman of fiction and fantasy. I don't think it's off base for him to inject a bit of literary whimsy if it adds insight or enlivens the dialogue.