WikiLeaks

1.    Literature Review

a.     Article 1: “WikiLeaks: the illusion of transparency”

Roberts’ article discusses the idea of transparency and communication regarding WikiLeaks, particularly in the digital world where information is readily abundant. Rather than agreeing with the purported purpose of WikiLeaks, Roberts argues that the impact of WikiLeaks’ documents and materials are not as significant or as important as some media sources have described (Roberts, 2012. pp 118). This is due to a variety of reasons including the internet being influenced by a multitude of political, commercial and ideological ‘entities’ (Roberts, 2012 pp 120). In addition, Roberts argues the process of WikiLeaks didn’t encourage transparency enough and did not inform the public enough, particularly regarding its original positon of just disclosing documents (Roberts, 2012 pp 122), that in fact in order to generate impact more needed to be done to package the information and present it to the public.

b.     Article 2: “We’re going to crack the world open”

Lynch’s article discusses the idea of WikiLeaks as a source of mainstream media journalistic material and its impact on the media sector at large particularly in its present and future tense. Lynch particularly argues that WikiLeaks is a reaction to obstacles and problems that have been faced by investigative reporting and its importance to journalism (Lynch, 2010 pp 310). Lynch suggests it’s operation is influencing and affecting journalists and their organisations, particularly due to its complicated relationship with media; this is due to it becoming more important as a media source (Lynch, 2010 pp 311). Lynch argues that as a media resource for many journalists, it has helped in sustaining journalistic principles, however its organisational structures and processes has led to uncertainty (Lynch, 2010 pp 317).

2.     Critical Reflection

One of the core issues that has impacted WikiLeaks public discourse since the beginning was about the responsibility it had as an organisation that had access to and provided so much sensitive information. This idea or purpose that WikiLeaks has of trying to combat transparency, has actually paradoxically resulted in WikiLeaks itself having “power without accountability” (Khatchadourian, 2010). Just like any other institution, particularly one so intertwined with media organisations, if there are no checks and balances, no one else to hold them to account, this could have potentially problematic implications for the rest of society; without considering traditional journalistic practices WikiLeaks has shrouded themselves with caution (Lynch, 2010 pp 311). 

WikiLeaks itself believes that “A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals” and that it is “part of that media” (WikiLeaks, 2011). What this suggests is that the organisation believes it is supporting liberal and journalistic ideals of openness and transparency, particularly regarding the media as the 4^th estate. Whilst these are essential core components to a functioning and vibrant democracy, particularly in the case of WikiLeaks, there is potentiality for it to have negative effects. This was particularly true regarding the Afghan war logs where, despite the policies and processes that had been put in place by WikiLeaks to reduce the ‘harm’ that its release of documents provided, lives were put at risk as names were not redacted from the materials (Roberts, 2012 pp 123). These problems and risks have existed due to two major issues, the first being the aforementioned lack of accountability that WikiLeaks has garnered but also the lack of experience of WikiLeaks as an increasingly influential organisation on media. Without proper scrutiny, WikiLeaks has the potentiality of causing further harm to individuals that are listed in its leaked documents, and if the documents aren’t properly checked, this could have significant implications for both domestic and international governments and organisations.

Furthermore, in understanding the political effects and influences of WikiLeaks, such decisions and actions place into doubt the true purpose and control of WikiLeaks as an organisation, particularly one that self-describes it as a “media organisation” (WikiLeaks, 2011). Some would however argue, that despite its purported influence on society’s political beliefs and attitudes, that there are limitations to its position an information depository. This is particularly true if we analyse the behaviours and reactions of society regarding the informational release of documents on WikiLeaks. One of the issues is that people, to a large extent, have no interest in ‘truth’ but are more attracted towards the idea of spectacle - there is no such thing as a rational public (Dean, 2002). What Dean argues is that informational discourse, particularly that in the public sphere relies on a rational public. This is supported by the idea that information has no effect on the audience if it is not packaged or delivered properly or in accordance to the attention of the audience (Roberts, 2012 pp 130). What this suggests is that despite the best intentions of WikiLeaks, unless the information is produced in a more palatable and digestible manner, the public itself is no more informed than previously, even if we are lead to believe otherwise. This places a significant criticism on the purpose and construct of WikiLeaks as an organisation.

Despite these criticisms however, there is a rationale for its creation. The internet and media have increasingly become influenced by a multitude of political and commercial influences (Roberts, 2012 pp 120). What WikiLeaks does provide is the perpetuation in the media of the idea that the internet and government need to become more transparent and accountable (Lovink n. Riemens, 2010). In addition, Lovink and Riemens argue that if WikiLeaks did not exist or had not been created, it would “have to be invented”. What Lovink and Riemens suggest is that despite the criticisms of WikiLeaks processes and attitudes surrounding its conception, the organisation is no more than an inevitability of the rise of digital technologies and the exponential increase to the accessibility to information.

This is particularly true if we are to frame WikiLeaks in the view of journalists, particularly investigative journalists and their respective media organisations. For some journalists, WikiLeaks has become an ever-increasing part of their media source material (Lynch, 2010 pp 315). Despite the fact that there are still some reservations regarding the organisations structure and procedures, as well as all the ethical implications of the documents being released, there was and remains, value and use to journalists for its existence (Lynch 2010 pp 313). What this suggests is that there is a gap in the system, where the organisations’ service of supplying and storing leaked information would be particularly beneficial to the media landscape and is not currently being provided by any other resource.

Lynch further argues that whilst new technology has provided WikiLeaks the ability to mass distribute information, in its purpose to reshape the media industry, it still remains inconclusive and undetermined if the industry itself will be revolutionised by the organisation (Lynch, 2010 pp 317). In fact, the problem that may exist with WikiLeaks, is in questioning its true impact on society and the public – has WikiLeaks actually had a significant impact on policies and politics, and has it made the public more informed? These questions provide the benchmark of analysing WikiLeaks as an organisation. In Roberts view however, there is potentiality for a false scope and view that WikiLeaks has in fact fixed or improved the system through its technological innovation (Roberts, 2012 pp 130) supporting some of the criticisms and reservations by Lynch. In fact, what they both suggest is the need for better processes, procedures and scrutiny that needs to be, not only within the WikiLeaks organisation but also greater scrutiny and understanding within the public sphere towards WikiLeaks as media resource.

3.     Research Scope

Areas that I would like to research more regarding this is the publics behaviours and attitudes towards information. Particularly in a declining sector of journalism and media, further insight may provide solutions to its revival or re-establishing its importance, particularly in the digital age and during a time of large-scale changes to the political environment. One of the critical questions I would like to ask is why do we prefer these spectacles rather than the truth and how is this changing our news organisations and their operations, as well as its component as the 4^th estate, holding accountability to the power structures within our society. 

4.     Reference List

·      Dean, J. 2001 ‘Publicity’s Secret’, Political Theory, vol. 29. No. 5 pp 624-650, Sage Publications 

·      Khatchadourian, R 2010, ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency’, The New Yorker, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/no-secrets

·      Lovink, G. Riemens P. 2013 ‘Twelve Theses on Wikipedia’ Beyond Wikileaks, pp 245-253, Palgrave Macmillan 

·      Lynch, L. 2010, ‘“WE’RE GOING TO CRACK THE WORLD OPEN”: WikiLeaks and the future of investigative reporting’, Journalism Practice 4/3, pp. 309-318 DOI: 10.1080/17512781003640752

·      Roberts, A. 2012, ‘WikiLeaks: the illusion of transparency’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 78/1, pp. 116–133, DOI: DOI: 10.1177/0020852311429428

·      WikiLeaks, 2011, ‘About WikiLeaks’, WikiLeaks, https://wikileaks.org/About.html

If you have a burning question, or would like to featured in some way in the "Ask them from me" segment, email me at: cc3493@gmail.com. If you do not want to be featured in the "Ask them from me" featured post, please let me know in the email :)

Visit Particular Interest for more content like this!

Previous Comment All Comments Next Comment