Wrestling with WikiLeaks
by
Marcel Van Silfhout |
What good comes out of revelations is still a question mark
It’s the world according to WikiLeaks these days. For some weeks now, there hasn’t been a day without mentioning the whistle-blowing website or its founder Julian Assange in newspapers around the globe. The massive disclosure of so many diplomatic and political secrets is a historical happening. But it’s far from clear what all those leaks at last will deliver us in future. Many lessons will be learned, but, with over 900 cables released –99 per cent still to go! – we’re staring at something that goes beyond our imagination.
So many leaks, so many secrets, journalists are dazzled by information overload from this whistle-blowing storm. At the same time there is this sense of “what’s really new?” People who read quality newspapers might have a great sense of déjà vu. Many documents confirm analyses that have been made by journalists before.
Nevertheless, WikiLeaks has caused massive damage to the US diplomatic work. Now, it appears, their secret briefings might end up as open secrets on the World Wide Web. Who will entrust diplomats with sensitive information in future? Journalists around the world are happily making use of WikiLeaks revelations. But the diplomatic distrust the disclosures are going to cause is immense. As a result, getting the right information might become tougher.
There is another worrisome development that, as a sort of underlying layer, might have caused Asange to blow his whistle on such a scale and with such a fury. The term ‘whistle-blower’ refers to English policemen who would blow their whistles when they notice a crime being committed to alert other officers and the general public. Perhaps the Dutch semantic equivalent ‘Klokkenluider’ (a bell-ringer) is better to use for WikiLeaks. A ‘Klokkenluider’ in Holland refers to a man or woman who rings the bell of a church or tower in town to warn the people of approaching danger. In early days such people were honoured for being bright and brave to ring the bell, but in modern times if such a thing happens the faith of the bell-ringer will be questioned and the person may even be prosecuted for making a company or government secret public.
This may prompt us to ask, “in which civilisation we live when we’re hanging the ones that warn us people for the dangers ahead?” But it’s clear that in the last few decades whistle-blowers in Europe, the United States and other continents have faced severe disciplinary actions. As an investigative journalist in The Netherlands, I’ve learned that all the serious, righteous and brave ‘Klokkenluiders’ I have met have been left alone without honour and money. They revealed scandals which led to massive public outrage and page 1 stories, but at the end, they all became poor, sick (often heart attacks) and unemployed.
Of course, we need to be clear: WikiLeaks isn’t journalism. Assange’s website only delivers us the raw material for disclosing stories. But the fact that whistle-blowers seem to prefer WikiLeaks to reveal scandals must be seen as a wake-up call for traditional journalism and governments. To treat critical employees as criminals has led to support of those whistle-blowers and to such a non-journalistic but yet professional organisation as WikiLeaks.
Assange is right when he points out that society needs more transparency. Western governments show an alarming tendency to collect more and more personal information from citizens to control them and to control society as a whole, but at the same time these governments have become less transparent about their own deeds, policies and decisions. In fact, in the neoliberal era, the power of market ánd state is growing and that of the civil society eroding. WikiLeaks might be seen as one of the answers to this dreadful development, but we should hope that such websites would not take over the role and function of journalism.
However, the bizarre and scandalous fact in the last weeks until his arrest in London on Tuesday was threats to the lives of Assange and his family, a classic case of ‘shoot the messenger’. The judicial case against Assange raises many questions. It cannot be ruled out that the charges of sex crimes in Sweden are fictitious. His arrest needs full journalistic and judicial attention.
It is unpleasant for politicians to see how huge leaks of military documents on Afghan and Iraq wars (the War Diaries) were released. And of course, there is a danger in irresponsibly releasing confidential information which might endanger lives of people named in the leaked reports (which haven’t occurred yet). But WikiLeaks accomplished an outstanding contribution to transparency and accountability.
In a recent statement of support from investigative journalists from 60 countries all over the world – released by the global investigative journalism network – it was said rightly: “Assange is being attacked for releasing information that should never have been withheld from the public. WikiLeaks’ factual reporting of numerous undisputed abuses and crimes is of far greater significance than the widely criticised mistakes over inadequate redacting. If it is espionage to publish documents provided by whistle blowers, then every journalist will eventually be guilty of that crime. Assange deserves our support and encouragement in the face of the attacks.” I’ve put my name on the list of support.
(Marcel van Silfhout is an investigative reporter working for public Dutch Television)
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for Marcel Van Silfhout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
