WikiLeaks- friend or foe?

As the Internet is heralded as the champion of the information age, it seems that there may be such thing as too much information.

Since it’s formation in 2007, WikiLeaks, a database for untraceable mass document leaking, has continued to make headlines across the world. With the release of numerous sensitive government and military documents, WikiLeaks has lead to many red-faced politicians condemning the site as contemptible (think Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard). So, is the only objection to WikiLeaks its tendency to injure the pride of those who have something to hide? As the power and prominence of the site continues to grow, there can be no doubt that WikiLeaks is encouraging a long-needed shake up of the system.

According to WikiLeaks, its “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes…[and] to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations” (WikiLeaks). To achieve these goals, WikiLeaks states that it utilises journalistic and ethical principles and practices when researching and releasing leaked documents. In keeping a watchful eye on the governments of the world, it appears that WikiLeaks is taking on journalism’s traditional role as the Fourth Estate.

WikiLeaks believes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and opinion. To them, the traditional media was not stepping up to the mark when it came to informing society. According to WikiLeaks:

“We observed the world’s publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change” (WikiLeaks 2011).

In order to enable society to better inform themselves of the innate goings-on of those in power, WikiLeaks has opted for the model of transparency. To them, “transparency creates a better society for all people” (WikiLeaks 2011). Aligning themselves as part of the media, WikiLeaks is effectively replacing journalism’s old model of objectivity with what they claim is a new model of journalism. This new transparency model allows the public to view an original source without a journalist’s own particular bias obscuring or colouring the facts. Similarly, within this model, WikiLeaks is not for profit, works with rather than competing against other media organisations and does not have to answer to advertisers or shareholders.

Above: Image taken from Google.

Should journalists be feeling the threat from this technology-savvy site? With its goals to keep democracy in balance through use of transparency, will WikiLeaks ultimately replace the traditional media? According to some, this is a change that needs to happen. David Weinberger believes that the problem with journalism’s model of objectivity “ is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark” (Silverman 2009). Alan Mutter supports this, agreeing that journalism should replace this “threadbare notion [of objectivity] with a realistic and credible standard of transparency that requires journalists to forthrightly declare their personal predilections…so the public can evaluate the quality of information it is getting” (Sambrook 2010).

And yet, despite this support, WikiLeaks says that they aren’t out to replace journalists in their role of informing the public. Journalism and WikiLeaks can, in fact, work in harmony. WikiLeaks state that they “believe the world’s media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership” (WikiLeaks 2011). WikiLeaks has already allowed journalists to access information that would ordinarily be out of their reach. As Time Magazine believes, WikiLeaks “could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act”.  

WikiLeaks has its critics and, more than likely, it always will. The whistleblower believes that what they’re doing is right and, what is right is not always popular with those who are exposed as being in the wrong. However, simply vilifying or even shutting down WikiLeaks is no longer enough to curb this newfound transparency. WikiLeaks is not an isolated case in the information revolution; it’s now simply one of many whistle-blowing websites.

References:

Sambrook, R (2010) The World at Large. Available: http://blogs.edelman.co.uk/richardsambrook/2010/12/05/the-state-of-american-journalism/

Silverman, H. (2009). David Weinberger: Transparency Subsumes Objectivity. Available: http://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2009/12/29/david_weinberger_transparency_subsumes_objectivity__kmworld.