Should WikiLeaks be Praised or Scrutinized?

Elizabeth Harris

eh109111@ohio.edu

When the topic of WikiLeaks comes to my mind, multiple questions arise as to if the organization is ethical. Should WikiLeaks be praised or scrutinized for exposing secret governmental information through anonymous sources? Does the public have the right to know that information or does it put national security at too high of a risk? Lastly, when does one determine when the release of information goes too far?

WikiLeaks describes itself as “A not-for-profit media organization, [whose] goal is to bring important news and information to the public. [They] provide an innovation, secure and anonymous for sources to leak information to [their] journalists.”

Praise or Scrutiny?

When examining the ethical value of WikiLeaks, it is important to refer back to SPJ’s code of ethics. Due to the fact WikiLeaks will inevitably cause harm in some type when it publishes any information, the premise of minimizing harm comes into play.

SPJ’s Code of Ethics states: “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” Does WikiLeaks do a good job of balancing that harm? The answer to that is extremity questionable. When considering the potential harm it can cause, WikiLeaks should be scrutinized.

On the other hand, transparency and truth are two other key principles of SPJ’s code of Ethics. It is without a doubt that WikiLeaks attempts to be as transparent and truthful and humanly possible. Therefore, if one were to refer to the transparency and truth WikiLeaks creates, praise would arise.

What Should the Public know: When Should the Line be Drawn?

Although I may be in the minority in my opinion and I am a strong believer in the freedom of the press, I ultimately believe that the concept of WikiLeaks goes too far. Yes, in a world happy world it is suitable to bring about transparency. 

However, if transparency results in harm to national security that might mean going too far. Although it may not necessarily seem just, the government keeps some documents secret for a reason. Reasons for secrecy may vary. However, I truly believe that the government has the best interest of the all citizens and national security as a whole when keeping certain documents private.

Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in military prison
for creating the largest breach of secret information in U.S history. 

The United Sates does not mess around when it comes to WikiLeaks. U.S solider Bradley Manning, who now goes by Chelsea Manning, was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years in military prison for creating the largest breach of secret information in the United States history by giving WikiLeaks over 700,000 classified files.  Although some people say that it was his right to free speech, and that he was providing transparency to the American people about what was really going on in Iraq, he was still punished.

In the end, it is truly each individuals opinion on if WikiLeaks should be considered ethical. As previously stated, although it may have some ethical components, I ultimately find the organization to be unethical.