Blurring the lines: WikiLeaks vs. Journalists

Meryl Gottlieb
mg986611@ohio.edu

What is Journalism?

One of the first things I was asked when I began my career here at Ohio University was “What do you think journalism is?” Our class then came up with a definition of something like “the career in which it is your duty to inform the public.” While that is one of the most basic definitions, I still hold that as true. Journalists’ first responsibility is to the public. We are to report fairly, independently and truthfully. We are to report information that the public needs to know, and we are to obtain that information in a just way.

So where does WikiLeaks fall into all of this?

According to the WikiLeaks website, its goal is “bring important news and information to the public.” It goes on to say they provide a way for sources to leak information to their journalists and explain their tactics, but I’m interested in that first statement. Right now they have the same basic goal as standard journalists.

WikiLeaks founder, Julia Assange, on the cover of Time (Courtesy of patrol-log.com)

If you continue to read WikiLeaks’ “about” page on its website, it is quite scary how much a journalist would agree with the things it states. For instance, “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 organizations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media...We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media...WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism.”

And yet no outlet in the media can cause a stir like WikiLeaks. Why are so many people against it?

Too Close For Comfort

The main problem resides in one of the first sentences written in the WikiLeaks “about” page: “We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists.”

There is too much secrecy surrounding WikiLeaks. While those who may actually work in the company and those who work with the companies it partners with may argue that there isn’t as much secrecy as there seems to be. To the public eye WikiLeaks is just as secretive — and manipulative — with its information as a top government agency is with its national secrets.

In an article for Time author Denver Nicks quotes Daniel Moynihan of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy or the Moynihan Secrecy Commission. In his book, Moynihan says, “Secrecy is for losers.”

While I may have put it a bit more eloquently, to some degree, I can agree with this statement. Journalists are supposed to peel away the cloud of secrecy that exists in our nation. But WikiLeaks does do this to some extent. Thus, you can see another parallel of WikiLeaks to journalists.

I can understand how WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange thinks he is right on par with fellow journalists, and as I continue to write this post, it’s getting harder for me to see the difference. Bradley Manning went to WikiLeaks with information about al Qaeda. Now assume WikiLeaks never existed. Could Manning have not just gone to a respectable new organization to leak the same information? Would it then be considered as scandalous?

In the Poynter article we read, the point is made clearly: “As these venerable news organizations verified and analyzed the documents, they legitimized them. Anyone can publish to the Web, but not with the impact of the Times, The Guardian or Der Spiegel. Do I trust WikiLeaks? Maybe not. But if the Times trusts them, perhaps I do.”

I think the word “leak” has shined such a negative light on WikiLeaks. What’s the difference if sources leak information to that “stateless news organization” instead of The New York Times?

Right now, the only difference I can see between us (journalists) and WikiLeaks is that we don’t just leak the information, we create a story around it. We don’t hold our leaked information over the heads of other outlets, we find the story and the truth and report it. Sadly, it’s getting harder and harder to reprimand WikiLeaks for actions I could easily see a journalist doing.

David Carr says this notion perfectly: “If the revelations about the N.S.A. surveillance were broken by Time, CNN or The New York Times, executives there would already be building new shelves to hold all the Pulitzer Prizes and Peabodies they expected. Same with the 2010 WikiLeaks video of the Apache helicopter attack. Instead, the journalists and organizations who did that work find themselves under attack, not just from a government bent on keeping its secrets, but from friendly fire by fellow journalists.”

Frankly, until now, I never delved deep into what WikiLeaks was. But I have to say I thought I would be able to more clearly define huge differences between WikiLeaks and traditional journalists. I am a bit disappointed that what I read was not able to help me in my original endeavor.