By Leo Shaw
Editor-in-Chief
The notion of journalism that has prevailed as long as government has abused its power and “All the President’s Men” has been in the public consciousness is that truth should come at any price. However, November’s massive disclosure of secret American diplomatic correspondence by WikiLeaks, a nonprofit media organization, challenges the ethical bounds of investigative reporting to a degree the field has seldom had to face.
WikiLeaks, started in 2007, receives, analyzes and then disseminates anonymously leaked information itself or through other media outlets.
It has gained notoriety in recent years for its publication of thousands of secret documents detailing U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while some on the left have lauded the group’s controversial efforts as heroic, its actions do stand on dubious ethical ground.
WikiLeaks justifies its position citing Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which asserts freedom of opinion and expression.
However, its leaks have in multiple cases included specific information concerning the identities of American operatives and allied parties overseas, putting crucial strategic partners in danger. While the government has over-exaggerated this liability, WikiLeaks’ refusal to take responsibility for the publication of such information remains unconscionable.
The inherent moral quandary of WikiLeaks’ mission is most troubling perhaps because it is partly justified. Its goal, to “open governments,” is an admirable one in light of the executive branch’s paranoid manipulation of intelligence agencies over the last decade.
From fabricated evidence of weapons of mass destruction to illegal torture practices at Guantánamo and secret prisons in Eastern Europe, wrongfully classified information has been rightfully leaked to the public.
However, most of the cables WikiLeaks made public last month contained the day-to-day mechanics of valuable American diplomacy rather than any smoking guns. Yes, it may be to the world’s advantage to know that Vladimir Putin picked a tame successor in order to maintain his secret financial accounts, or that the Saudi energy minister drafted the ineffective Copenhagen Climate Agreement. However, as they concern American interests, the cables will do the American people no good.
Because the general public now knows, for example, that some Chinese leaders are trying to cooperate with American diplomats regarding North Korea, it cannot be expected that those leaders will be so forthcoming in future communication. In this respect, once it starts releasing information for the sake of publicity and anti-government vitriol, WikiLeaks cannot be considered a legitimate journalistic enterprise.
American diplomacy is a murky arena of very gradual progress. Especially in today’s world, it is the journalist’s responsibility to report and interpret information for the benefit of the public, not to jeopardize legitimate diplomatic efforts made on the public’s behalf for the sake of a sensational headline.
Leave a Reply