Wikileaks believes “Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.” (Wikileaks, 2011).
So the organisation basically believe that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression and they also suggest that everyone has the right to seek information through any media regardless of frontiers in order to develop such opinions.
As we all know, Wikileaks is famous for exposing confidential information that is extremely controversial in regards to security measures, other organisations, governments and even nations.
Would it be right for journalists to report the information that Wikileaks is literally leaking?
Does Wikileaks adhere to journalistic standards?
And, is objectivity more important than freedom of information?
Wikileaks argues that they are using transparency to enable the public to information they aren’t meant to know. The organisation explains that are simply doing the job that journalists won’t. “In the years leading up to the founding of wikileaks we observed the worlds media becoming far less likely to ask the hard questions of governments and other institutions” (Wikileaks, 2011).
Journalists need to use some level of objectivity when it comes to information that is crucial to the security of a country and its people, so if journalists were to report with total transparency what would this reflect in terms of ethical practice?
That’s not to say that journalists don’t report with transparency at all and they don’t even report with complete objectivity. This makes it hard to compare whether transparency or objectivity is more beneficial in journalism because I am more likely to ask the question:
Does a level of complete objectivity or complete transparency exist at all?
Why Transparency?
David Weinberger (2009) states “the problem with 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).
So in this case transparency supersedes objectivity as it gives the reader the information that enables them to differentiate between biases.
We can not eliminate all secrets or live in a world where privacy and confidentiality no longer exist. With this in mind it would seem that transparency should be more prevalent in journalism as we move into the digital era where secrets are near impossible.
Information in the digital age reflects a level of openness where transparency plays a vital role.
Hamsher (2009) believes that “Our elite media has been sloppy, lazy and corrupt for so long they have apparently forgotten what the purpose of the fourth estate actually is” (Hamsher, 2009).
In regards to transparency, Wikileaks have been able to stay separate from the media but use them to disseminate mass information and as such Wikileaks can do the job that journlaists don’t by acting as a watchdog over governments and other powerful institutions.
Wikileaks material is checked and verified prior to being published so they are adhering to journalistic standards when checking their facts, so perhaps transparency could be more beneficial to journalists and the public if we maintain journalistic standards whilst utilising transparency.
A great question posed in response to the backlash against Wikileaks asks “Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our government’s failure to protect classified information?” (Clipston, 2010).
Are our governments simply scared of transparency, or does the public really not want to know such important information?
Why Objectivity?
Journalists have a high responsibility when it comes to reporting in this digital age where information spreads like wild fire and it could be fair to argue that total transparency is not a way of practicing good journalism.
Since the inception of Wikileaks the U.S people have had a better insight of what goes on in government, but is this a good thing?
Nick Minchin disagrees. He argues that keeping information confidential in regards to government is how they maintain a diplomatic country and diplomacy is how countries avoid war, so exposing this information can cause harm to peace within the entire world. “For nations to remain at peace requires artful diplomacy. If ambassadors and foreign embassy officials can’t honestly report back to their governments on what is happening on the ground in those countries, which they now can’t do because of the fear that the things they write will be exposed in the public arena, I think that will set back the course for diplomacy and I think that is bad for world peace” (Barwick, 2011).
Perhaps it’s a question of privacy and public interest? Is freedom of information or safety more important in the public interest?
Wikileaks states that the organisation “has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media.” (Wikileaks, 2011).
Are journalists filling the role of objectivity by reporting on the information presented by Wikileaks?
Do we simply rely on the media to assess the information and provide the public with the objective view of the information?
Wikileaks is seen as being transparent, however they continue to be objective when deciding what information to publish, when to publish it and by whom it is published. This would suggest a bias within the organisation although they argue that they do not push a political agenda.
Whether transparency or objectivity is more important when publishing information, in regards to journalism I would argue it is important to allow the public to create opinions and a freedom to information provided the exposure of the information doesn’t result in harm or danger.
I think its fair to argue that as a certain compared model of journalism, Wikileaks conforms to some journalistic standards but disregard others and in the case of danger to security, objectivity would be more beneficial then total transparency.
To come to a conclusion I don’t think you can have either complete transparency or complete objectivity and journalists need to understand how to balance the two based on the information being reported.
References:
Barwick, H. (2011). WikiLeaks, media last bastions of trust for US. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/398086/wikileaks_media_last_bastions_trust_us/
Clipston, T. (2010). "Lying is Not Patriotic" – Congressman Ron Paul on WikiLeaks. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://www.suite101.com/news/lying-is-not-patriotic--congressman-ron-paul-speaks-a319557
Hamsher, J. (2009). Wikileaks: It’s Not the Media’s Job to Play CYA for the State Department. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://my.firedoglake.com/Jane-2/category/wikileaks/.
Hamsher, J. (2009). Wikileaks: It’s Not the Media’s Job to Play CYA for the State Department. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://my.firedoglake.com/Jane-2/category/wikileaks/.
Sifry, M. (2011). WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://0www.newcastle.eblib.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=669788
Silverman, H. (2009). David Weinberger: Transparency Subsumes Objectivity. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2009/12/29/david_weinberger_transparency_subsumes_objectivity__kmworld.
Wikileaks. (2011). Wikileaks. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://wikileaks.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment