WikiLeaks – A Moral Quagmire

by melonakos on August 2, 2010

in Current Events,Media,Politics,Security

“WikiLeaks: It’s all fun and games until some helpful Afghan gets his eyes poked out.” ~Angus McRae

WikiLeaks made headlines again in recent days with the “Afghan War Diary, 2004-2010.” For those unaware, WikiLeaks is a internet site where people can dump documents to expose to the world. It is run by mysterious people about whom not a lot is known.

This presents a moral quagmire that is often overshadowed by the leaks themselves:  Is the concept of WikiLeaks a good thing or a bad thing? Are you happy it exists or not?

The media seem to be tacitly thankful for the leaks, as it has produced troves of information fueling their stories. You would likely be hard pressed to find someone who wishes they personally did not have access to the leaked information. Many seem to champion the exposing of government secrets. Checkout the TED audience reaction to Julian Assange, spokesman for WikiLeaks (skip to 10:40 to see the audience vote):

The main voice of disapproval seems to come from the leaked, in this case the Department of Defense.

Yet, something about WikiLeaks also just does not sit well with me.

I don’t think my queasiness comes from the mere fact that WikiLeaks is “breaking the law” by releasing other people’s classified documents. Mainstream news organizations often leak classified information, playing the important whistle-blower role. Whistle-blowing is an important and necessary function in society.

I guess what it comes down to is the people behind the organization. I just don’t feel comfortable with WikiLeaks gaining traction as a whistle-blower when the people behind it are so mysterious and covert. With mainstream news organizations, you have the filter of professionalism, editorial boards, and accountability. With WikiLeaks, you have none of that – you really don’t know what you have.

From Crovitz in today’s WSJ, “Disclosure is usually good, but WikiLeaks has undermined the cause. Releasing this information is the equivalent of publishing the sailing dates of troop ships.”

If WikiLeaks continues to gain credibility, it is perfectly feasible that falsified documents could be released and gain traction to meet the agenda of whomever is behind this thing. No, I don’t trust that Benford’s Law is going to figure this out for me.

How do you feel about WikiLeaks? If you disapprove, what can be done to diminish its role? If you approve, then you can probably sit back and watch the documents keep rolling – cause it looks to be gaining steam.

http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/

Tagged as: Current Events, media, politics, Security, WikiLeaks

  • Ben Rogerson

    Hey John — Ben Rogerson here (Fred T. Foard ’98).

    We can attribute some of the “mysteriousness” of Julian Assange to concerted media efforts to portray him as a kook. After all, traditional media bristles at the encroachment of non-traditional media [the internet, "evil" bloggers such as yourself]. But much of his “mysteriousness” is required by the adversarial position he holds vis-a-vis the U. S. government and the Pentagon. To wit: ironically, WikiLeaks has released Pentagon documents *about WikiLeaks*:

    “The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a secret report — obtained and posted by WikiLeaks — devoted to this website and detailing, in a section entitled “Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?”, ways it would seek to destroy the organization. It discusses the possibility that, for some governments, not merely contributing to WikiLeaks, but “even accessing the website itself is a crime,” and outlines its proposal for WikiLeaks’ destruction as follows [...]”

    From: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks

    Furthermore, I think the emphasis on WikiLeaks as a “moral quagmire” speaks to a larger point about the manipulation of public opinion (by both that traditional media and the White House and Pentagon). After all, the Afghanistan War and the leaked documents recall less a “moral quagmire” than a military one — Vietnam. But the American media has framed this story in terms of the WikiLeaks itself (and “moral” issues) rather than *the war* itself. Pundits argue until they’re blue in the face about Assange, but no one even debates the merits of another $37 billion dollars for the (unwinnable?) Afghanistan War (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/27/4764457-house-passes-war-supplemental-but-democrats-opposing-triples). We’ve spent a trillion dollars on these wars!

    Anyways, just some thoughts. Hope all is well with you and yours.

  • Ben Rogerson

    Hey John — Ben Rogerson here (Fred T. Foard ’98).

    We can attribute some of the “mysteriousness” of Julian Assange to concerted media efforts to portray him as a kook. After all, traditional media bristles at the encroachment of non-traditional media [the internet, "evil" bloggers such as yourself]. But much of his “mysteriousness” is required by the adversarial position he holds vis-a-vis the U. S. government and the Pentagon. To wit: ironically, WikiLeaks has released Pentagon documents *about WikiLeaks*:

    “The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a secret report — obtained and posted by WikiLeaks — devoted to this website and detailing, in a section entitled “Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?”, ways it would seek to destroy the organization. It discusses the possibility that, for some governments, not merely contributing to WikiLeaks, but “even accessing the website itself is a crime,” and outlines its proposal for WikiLeaks’ destruction as follows [...]”

    From: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks

    Furthermore, I think the emphasis on WikiLeaks as a “moral quagmire” speaks to a larger point about the manipulation of public opinion (by both that traditional media and the White House and Pentagon). After all, the Afghanistan War and the leaked documents recall less a “moral quagmire” than a military one — Vietnam. But the American media has framed this story in terms of the WikiLeaks itself (and “moral” issues) rather than *the war* itself. Pundits argue until they’re blue in the face about Assange, but no one even debates the merits of another $37 billion dollars for the (unwinnable?) Afghanistan War (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/27/4764457-house-passes-war-supplemental-but-democrats-opposing-triples). We’ve spent a trillion dollars on these wars!

    Anyways, just some thoughts. Hope all is well with you and yours.

  • Ben Rogerson

    For that matter, the NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen had an interesting assessment of how WikiLeaks is altering the relationship between a given state, traditional media, and the internet. His 6th point speaks to some of the anxieties and/or concerns that you’ve expressed:

    “From an editor’s note: ‘At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.’ There’s the new balance of power, right there. In the revised picture we find the state, which holds the secrets but is powerless to prevent their release; the stateless news organization, deciding how to release them; and the national newspaper in the middle, negotiating the terms of legitimacy between these two actors.”

    http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html

  • Ben Rogerson

    For that matter, the NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen had an interesting assessment of how WikiLeaks is altering the relationship between a given state, traditional media, and the internet. His 6th point speaks to some of the anxieties and/or concerns that you’ve expressed:

    “From an editor’s note: ‘At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.’ There’s the new balance of power, right there. In the revised picture we find the state, which holds the secrets but is powerless to prevent their release; the stateless news organization, deciding how to release them; and the national newspaper in the middle, negotiating the terms of legitimacy between these two actors.”

    http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html

  • Pavan

    “With mainstream news organizations, you have the filter of professionalism, editorial boards, and accountability. With WikiLeaks, you have none of that – you really don’t know what you have.”

    Ofcourse, that was a criticism that they answered with sharing the information with 3 mainstream, reputable, news papers. They had the information for days, checking and rechecking facts before publishing them.

  • Pavan

    “With mainstream news organizations, you have the filter of professionalism, editorial boards, and accountability. With WikiLeaks, you have none of that – you really don’t know what you have.”

    Ofcourse, that was a criticism that they answered with sharing the information with 3 mainstream, reputable, news papers. They had the information for days, checking and rechecking facts before publishing them.

  • http://www.melonakos.com melonakos

    Ben, I’m thrilled to hear from you. My love for these kinds of conversations really had its genesis in the discussions that we had together along with Ben C back in the day, with occasional appearances by Lea H and David Y.

    Certainly, some of the traditional media has bristled out about Assange. But my perception was the opposite. It seems like the majority of headlines are focused on what the leaks contained, not the guys behind the leak. Though there are notable stories about the latter – including the WSJ piece linked in the post.

    From what I gather about the Afghan leak without any real digging on my part, the leaks do contain information that had no business being withheld from public view. The leaks do contain important information that should shape public opinion about the war. (Note, a discussion of our current wars is a whole other kit-n-kaboodle.) All of this points towards WikiLeaks becoming more-and-more trusted as the go-to place for leaks.

    Traditional media has its downsides, and competitive pressures of non-traditional media have a lot of positive effects.

    But I’m not sure that we’ve seen anything non-traditional take such a pivotal role in releasing such substantive information. I worry about the rising levels of trust in this organization.

  • http://www.melonakos.com melonakos

    Ben, I’m thrilled to hear from you. My love for these kinds of conversations really had its genesis in the discussions that we had together along with Ben C back in the day, with occasional appearances by Lea H and David Y.

    Certainly, some of the traditional media has bristled out about Assange. But my perception was the opposite. It seems like the majority of headlines are focused on what the leaks contained, not the guys behind the leak. Though there are notable stories about the latter – including the WSJ piece linked in the post.

    From what I gather about the Afghan leak without any real digging on my part, the leaks do contain information that had no business being withheld from public view. The leaks do contain important information that should shape public opinion about the war. (Note, a discussion of our current wars is a whole other kit-n-kaboodle.) All of this points towards WikiLeaks becoming more-and-more trusted as the go-to place for leaks.

    Traditional media has its downsides, and competitive pressures of non-traditional media have a lot of positive effects.

    But I’m not sure that we’ve seen anything non-traditional take such a pivotal role in releasing such substantive information. I worry about the rising levels of trust in this organization.

  • http://www.melonakos.com melonakos

    Pavan, good point. There really isn’t anything to pinpoint with this thing and to say with full disdain, “This is one bad apple.” WL seems to be doing everything it can to gain our trust, except show us who’s behind the curtain.

  • http://www.melonakos.com melonakos

    Pavan, good point. There really isn’t anything to pinpoint with this thing and to say with full disdain, “This is one bad apple.” WL seems to be doing everything it can to gain our trust, except show us who’s behind the curtain.

  • Yeeby

    Of course theres a place for wikileaks…If established MEDIA did their job wikileaks would never have existed…pretty simple really.

Previous post:

Next post: