Sabrina Fawley
sf339111@ohio.edu
WikiLeaks Affects
"WikiLeaks has shifted power away from
monoliths that once determined what is news and toward the people who, before
the Web, would have been stopped in the newspaper lobby before they could see a
reporter."
This quote comes from the reading "How WikiLeaks is Changing the News Power Structure," which declares just how much of an influence it has had on modern journalism. WikiLeaks has made it easier for journalists to get information, but that information is also extremely hard to verify. The info inside those documents is not "one-sided," that's why three different newspapers came up with different conclusions about what the information meant.
Although, these different meanings are different it doesn't mean the public had any less of a right to information that is pertinent. The Council on Foreign Relations published an interesting article, "How WikiLeaks affects journalism.
This quote comes from the reading "How WikiLeaks is Changing the News Power Structure," which declares just how much of an influence it has had on modern journalism. WikiLeaks has made it easier for journalists to get information, but that information is also extremely hard to verify. The info inside those documents is not "one-sided," that's why three different newspapers came up with different conclusions about what the information meant.
Although, these different meanings are different it doesn't mean the public had any less of a right to information that is pertinent. The Council on Foreign Relations published an interesting article, "How WikiLeaks affects journalism.
 |
| Photo Credit: techdigest |
Journalism?
Is WikiLeaks journalism?
No, at least, I don't believe that it could be considered journalism. Journalism serves the public and is based on principles such as truth and accuracy. Journalism acts like a set of checks and balance to the government. WikiLeaks doesn't look at the information, decide what is important to the public, think about the actions of leaking the information or explain the meaning to the public. Before journalists publish something -- at least good journalists -- they think about the potential harm they could cause; they ask themselves who will be harmed and does that harm outweigh the information that is being published.
I know even journalists do not always get this correct, but this is one of the biggest factors that makes WikiLeaks something other than journalism. The information on WikiLeaks was just published documents, which does not make it journalism. An article "Is what WikiLeaks does Journalism? Good question" discussed the two different views of this debate. This article shares the views from Jason Pontin, a New York University Professor; Aaron Bady, a PhD student; and Tim Carmody, an author.
No, at least, I don't believe that it could be considered journalism. Journalism serves the public and is based on principles such as truth and accuracy. Journalism acts like a set of checks and balance to the government. WikiLeaks doesn't look at the information, decide what is important to the public, think about the actions of leaking the information or explain the meaning to the public. Before journalists publish something -- at least good journalists -- they think about the potential harm they could cause; they ask themselves who will be harmed and does that harm outweigh the information that is being published.
I know even journalists do not always get this correct, but this is one of the biggest factors that makes WikiLeaks something other than journalism. The information on WikiLeaks was just published documents, which does not make it journalism. An article "Is what WikiLeaks does Journalism? Good question" discussed the two different views of this debate. This article shares the views from Jason Pontin, a New York University Professor; Aaron Bady, a PhD student; and Tim Carmody, an author.
Protection?
Just because I do not consider WikiLeaks journalism
doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. WikiLeaks
does not have an ethical code when deciding whether or not to publish this
information, which I find troubling.
Yet, what I find even more troubling than WikiLeaks not being accountable is that the government is so outraged by these leaks. It makes democracy look bad because without this kind of information news organizations of any kind wouldn't be able to do their jobs properly, which is being the checks and balances to the government.
The possibility of restricting information can become very dangerous, very fast, because if the government decided that this kind of action by WikiLeaks and its whistleblowers is wrong this will automatically lead to the question of what kind of information the public should have access to. Will information be released even if it might hurt a democracy or the public by not knowing? Probably not, and simply because of politics.
That is where WikiLeaks (a source) and media organizations come into play -- by being a checks and balances. The First Amendment protects more than just journalists.
Yet, what I find even more troubling than WikiLeaks not being accountable is that the government is so outraged by these leaks. It makes democracy look bad because without this kind of information news organizations of any kind wouldn't be able to do their jobs properly, which is being the checks and balances to the government.
The possibility of restricting information can become very dangerous, very fast, because if the government decided that this kind of action by WikiLeaks and its whistleblowers is wrong this will automatically lead to the question of what kind of information the public should have access to. Will information be released even if it might hurt a democracy or the public by not knowing? Probably not, and simply because of politics.
That is where WikiLeaks (a source) and media organizations come into play -- by being a checks and balances. The First Amendment protects more than just journalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment