Much as we might like to believe in the concept of a free and balanced press, the reality is that, the press, throughout history, has probably never really achieved anything close to impartiality. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the content of news media is determined in some part by the views of higher editorial personnel, even if the agendas of such are not always clearly seen.
So just what is WikiLeaks? Here's what they say on their site:
WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.Since its founding in 2007, the WikiLeaks organization has released large amounts of formerly suppressed news, much of which has caused concern for various parties. In late October, there was a large release of files pertaining to the war in Iraq. In mid-November, a Swedish orders that Assange be detained as a result of an investigation into allegations of "of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."1 A European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange and he is currently in custody, having turned himself in to British authorities. A court date is scheduled for December 14. Though a Swedish prosecutor "was cited in newspaper Aftonbladet as saying the case was a personal matter and was not connected with his WikiLeaks work"2, the timing does seem to be a tad bit convenient, in light of the major release on November 28th of over a quarter million diplomatic cables. And, yes, that last statement is an editorial comment on my part.
In the days following his arrest, attempts have been made by various organizations to cut off the organization's funding donation sources and its ability to operate online. In retaliation, anonymous protesters have engaged in various forms of cyber warfare against some of these companies. Most recently, these protesting groups have focused their efforts into spreading the WikiLeaks released information.
Some of the commentary on the WikiLeaks releases, now generally referred to as CableGate, has been dramatic, to say the least. At least one former Presidential candidate has called for Assange's execution, so it's clear that there are some very strong reactions to the WikiLeaks release of information.
It's difficult to be objective when looking at the issues raised by CableGate. On the one hand, there are certainly situations where suppression of certain types of information could be warranted under provisions of national security and defense. On the other side of the issue though is the notion of transparency and the fact that we have a current US administration that campaigned on a platform touting a promise of transparency and yet has fallen very far short of any form of transparency whatsoever. Traditionally, whistle-blowers and hard-core investigative journalists have served to shine the light into dark corners and, for the most part, those efforts have been applauded. Should we be looking at Assange and WikiLeaks in the same light? If the potential public exposure of clandestine operations makes such operations less likely to occur, is there truly a downside to increased transparency?
_______________________________
1 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B741R20101209
2 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B61PX20101208
No comments:
Post a Comment