Journalistic Ethics & Wikileaks: The Pro Side
by: Hannah Smaby, Devon Christian, Kiele Char, Kaela Fiesta, Orion Schade, Juliana Guyt, Maria Corbett, Nick Adamson, Kristen Toguchi, Paige Kester, Larissa Reynoso, AJ Nelson, Micah Nakamoto, Mariam Rija, and Eamonn Hartmann
According to technologyreview.com , Wikileaks is a “self-described ‘not-for-profit media organization,’ launched in 2006 for the purposes of disseminating original documents from anonymous sources and leakers.” Also, according to BBC News reporter, Jonathan Fildes, “Wikileaks has dominated the news, both because of its steady drip feed of secret documents, but also because of the dealings of its enigmatic front man Julian Assange.“Additionally, according to Anita’s Notebook, “And if we could develop a system whereby we could maximize the number of those disclosures, and get them out to the press and everyone else, we could increase the amount of just reform going on in the world. But that’s actually not such an easy thing to do. It seemed like it would be relatively easy.. We knew, I’ve been an investigative journalist for a long time, that actually getting documents is not so hard. The problem is publishing them and keeping them up in the face of attacks, both economic and legal.” Also, according to Anita’s Notebook, “…Picture representing information flow in the digital realm.So we decided to come up with a system that would help us do this, to pull in material from all over the world. From people in China who were facing oppression to journalists who couldn’t get things past the editors. We decided to take the hardest publishing case and become specialists in publishing the unpublishable.” According to Quora, “The reason for their current problems is the release of many very sensitive documents about the US military. Bradley Manning provided these documents and WikiLeaks published them. The reason why the website is somewhat silent is the lack of funding they receive due to a blockage by Visa and Paypal, among others. All their funding goes to legal aid and maintaining servers.”
“The only way to keep a secret is to never have one.” –Julian Assange
Julian Assange a 45 year old Australian who is best known as the founder, editor-in-chief, and director of the website WikiLeaks which is a website that publicly publishes secret information obtained from anonymous informants. He is an extremely interesting individual that has lived a highly controversial life. Even as a child he was a bit out of the ordinary. He never met his biological father, who left his mother before he was even born, and instead was raised by his step-father. His step-father was involved in traveling theater and in result of this, Julian had lived in over 30 locations in Australia by the time he was a teenager. As a teenager he discovered his passion and skill for computer hacking. He began to ethically hack with a group of his friends in 1987 under the name “Mendax”. He and his comrades hacked large organizations including NASA, Stanford University, Motorola, and even the U.S. Department of Defense facilities, among many others. Information regarding his personal life is limited, but sources say he was married to a woman named Teresa in his teens and had a son named Daniel in 1989. They split later on and there was a large legal battle for custody of the boy. His hacking activities were revealed in the early 1990s and he was eventually charged with 31 counts of hacking related crimes in 1994. He pleaded guilty to 25 of those charges in 1996 and was only penalized with fines. He enrolled at the University of Melbourne to study mathematics in 2003 but dropped out without completing his degree in 2006. That same year, Julian began the site that would lead to controversy of catastrophic proportion, Wikileaks. The site was not officially launched until 2007 and in three short years the site had gained huge popularity. The arguably most impactful release of information was the infamous Collateral Murder video in 2010. Not only is the site known for it incredible impact, it is also known for its size. By 2015, WikiLeaks has published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses! Creating the site was not the only controversial act that Julian committed. In 2010, two warrants for his arrest were put out, one for rape and another for molestation. He claimed there were no bases for these accusations and pleaded innocent. In 2015 the charges for molestation were dropped. The accusations of rape have yet to be dealt with. Although some may hate him for his controversial journalism, some highly respect him. In 2010 he received the Sam Adams Award for being a “whistleblower” and promoting transparency in the government. He is one of only 14 people who have received this award. Many influential figures have a wide range of critics from idolizers to those who despise, and Julian Assange is no exception. There are many different opinions of this man, what is yours?
The Leaking of Diplomatic Cables to the Public
Wikileaks received their classified information about the diplomatic cables through submissions from anonymous whistleblowers. A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. Chelsea (at the time Bradley) Manning was accused for leaking the unauthorized downloaded material to Wikileaks. This accusation is due to the diplomatic cables marked with “Sipdis”, meaning “secret internet protocol distribution”, which comes from the U.S. SIPRNet that the U.S. Department of Defense uses. What prevented the U.S. government from convicting Manning in the beginning was from the fact that more than three million government personnel and soldiers have access to that specific network. The motive that was pinned on Manning for leaking the information is due to the troubles he had of being a homosexual and being restricted to talk about his sexual orientation because of the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” rule. Wikileaks released the information given to them because they believed that the public should understand what is happening with the government and know how it affects them. Also, the anonymous submissions may be given by those who disagree with what is happening.
Information Contained by the Cables
The cables released by Wikileaks, contained information ranging from Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts, to a cable under the name of Reyjavik13 that revealed the banking crisis in Iceland. With over 250,000 American diplomatic cables released, it’s not difficult to find cables pertaining to the operation of Guantanamo Bay and the bargaining to empty the prison located in Cuba. Or cables containing the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates
What were the implications?
What do the Cables Reveal?
Wikileaks revealed classified diplomatic cables that had been sent to the U.S State Department by 274 of its consulates, embassies, and diplomatic missions around the world. Dated between December 1966 and February 2010, the cables contain diplomatic analysis from world leaders, and the diplomats’ assessment of host countries and their officials. The first document, the so-called Reykjavik 13 cable, was released by WikiLeaks on February, 18th 2010, and was followed by the release of State Department profiles of Icelandic politicians a month later. This publication of the cables was the third in a series of U.S. classified document “mega-leaks” distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following the Afghan war document leak in July, and the Iraq war document leak in October. Over 130,000 of the cables are unclassified, some 100,000 are labeled “confidential”, around 15,000 have the higher classification “secret”, and none are classified as “top secret” in this classification scale.
The contents of the U.S. diplomatic cables leak describe in detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274 embassies. These diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
Prior to the release of the diplomatic cables, it was largely unknown that tyrannical and brutal dictator of Egypt Hosni Mubarak existed, let alone that he was supported and backed by the U.S. government during his 30 year reign of the country. According to Frontline, the release of the documents exposed corruption in foreign relations and sparked an outrage amongst the Tunisian people, which started a cascade effect within the Arab world, including the eventual overthrow of Mubarak and other dictators and a widespread regional revolution later dubbed the Arab Spring (frontline, 2011; Bachrach, 2011). Amnesty International dubbed WikiLeaks and the Guardian newspaper as “catalysts” for the Arab Spring (Walker, 2011).
The public, especially the American people, finally becoming aware and having physical evidence of the widespread corruption related to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries was polarizing, as some leaped to defend the actions of the government while others grew despondent and even more skeptical of U.S. foreign policy and America’s role in the wars and in other countries.
Another impact of the leaks was on the U.S. government and other nations such as the UK, Finland and Germany in terms of diplomatic relationships (Karhula, 2012).
What were the responses to the situation?
The Portrayal of War in Popular Media
According to Julian Assange, the documents that were leaked revealed a broader and more pervasive level of violence than what the military and media reveals. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html) However, the media’s lack of publishing the war was due to the fact that their sources (military, journalists, government) wouldn’t share as much information with them to protect civilians and themselves in many cases. The amount of information actually published was about 5% of the total news coverage (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/media/20coverage.html), and when the information was leaked from Manning, it shocked everyone to see just how little they actually knew about what was going on in the war. It is far easier to hide the information from the media along with the citizens of the countries involved in order to protect themselves and avoid backlash if the truth were found out, and so long as they share the bare minimum, no one questions what’s going on. Since the Manning documents leakings, however, now large media sites like NPR.org, huffingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com are beginning to question the reasons for lack of news sharing from the beginning.
Where Does the Controversy Arise From?
The “whistleblowing” website WikiLeaks has become a dividing and controversial issue for exposing classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security and compromise international diplomacy. This made civil rights organizations reconsider their stand on Wikileaks. They agree on the undeniable value that Wikileaks has had by indicating violations of human rights and civil liberties. Also there is a controversial issue with the founder himself, Julian Assange. To his supporters, he is a valiant campaigner for truth. And to his critics, he is a publicity-seeker who has endangered lives by putting a ton of information into the public domain.
Journalistic Decision-Making and Ethics:
The Controversy of the Publication of Leaked Documents by the New York Times
NY Times decision to publish the leaked documents is very controversial as far as legality and ethics is concerned. The leaked documents contain classified information and names and locations of diplomats, informants, and other confidential and secretive personnel. Indeed, after they publish some of the documents they were met with a slew of questions demanding what right they had to release said information (Bill Keller, NY Times, 11/2010). The controversy was mostly over whether or not it was right to release the documents as it could potentially endanger those whose names are mentioned in the cables. While it is true that many of the names were redacted some of the leaked cables were published in full. However, the Times took the necessary steps to make sure that confidential informants and issues of national security were not in danger of being released to the public. In fact the Times encouraged other news and media outlets to do the same in order to protect those people and the countries involved. Some people still questioned the NY Times decision to release this information claiming it was a breach of privacy and harmed national security. The NY Times took publication a step further and sent the cables to the Obama administration and received further instruction on redaction. Despite the ethical and responsible steps that the NY Times took in order to protect informants and national security their decision to publish was still called into controversy by some of the public. However, the NY Times acted ethically and responsibly and revealed sensitive information in a way that protects those that need protection while calling to account those that need to speak for their words and actions.
Reasons for The New York Times Reporting these Cables
Freedom of the press was one of the main reasons that The New York Times published the leaked cables. This notion helps to withhold the democracy that America was founded on and allows the public to praise as well as critique the media when something is published falsely or out of context. The cables also provide media consumers with a better, uncut understanding of how foreign policy is working in America (Keller, 2010). In “A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents,” The New York Times wrote that “the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.” Also included in The Times’ note was their collective concern with the possible dangerous that could arise when they published the cables.
The New York Times’ Stance About what Should be Published
The Times have chosen to publish some of these leaked cables, but have chosen to exclude some details that could potentially endanger the U.S. These actions were shared with other news organizations and WikiLeaks with the hope that they would also edit their documents. Editors at The Times carefully check to make sure that they withhold any confidential information that could be useful to war adversaries. The goal of the New York Times is to, “tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country the most heavily in lives and money” (NY Times, 2010). The Times wants the American public to understand what is going on behind closed doors.
Are These Decisions Ethical?
Based on the idea that having knowledge is generally beneficial for the citizens of the United States, the decision to leak the documents can be seen as a right of the people to know the machinations of their government, and therefore this was an ethical action. Understanding the US government’s dealings with other countries can allow its citizens to police each other (as in the video shown by Julian Assange that showcased the relentless violence used in Afghanistan and Iraq). It has encouraged citizens of other countries to overthrow their corrupt governments and lead them to a revolution (as was the case in Egypt and other Arab nations). Since the government of the US exists to serve the people, the idea that allowing all its citizens to know its dealings is somehow a disservice or violation of privacy to the government is ridiculous. If the government truly serves the people, then it should not matter if the people know about governmental actions, especially as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the existence of Guantanamo Bay have repeatedly been defended as a way to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens. If the government and our elected officials are working to protect us and serve our best interests, then discussions in clandestine meetings with other nations and details on the daily lives of our soldiers, who are funded by our taxpayer dollars, should not be a concern. It should already be the duty of the government to provide us with the information about where are money is going and how are country is acting on the global scale, and because the government was not doing its job properly and was hiding embarrassing and violent injustices from the country, exposing their actions was the right thing to do….
The Argument For Government Transparency
Increased visibility to governmental procedures and documents is crucial for establishing support from those that the government is elected to represent. In terms of the information that was released by the WikiLeaks site, the departments who had sensitive information released are publicly funded. The people of the United States are the ones who paid taxes for the military to function and therefore should have some knowledge to where the money is going and what it is doing. This is also applicable to the global view of a country. When the United States is under scrutiny on a global scale, the nation will be more careful with the decisions made as well who are publicly displayed as allies or enemies.
If the government was really transparent, citizens can truly see what is going on. The fact is that the media that the public sees doesn’t always show the the full story, that certain actions that may seem controversial be hidden from the public’s view. It lets the people know actually what’s going on and what they’re government and governments around the world are actually doing. Government transparency can lead to less scandals and corruption with government officials or between governments. Through some of the material that was released on WikiLeaks site shows the truth, like China’s intrusion in Google’s computer system in that country or the potential corruption in the Afghan government.
Public Access to Information
Today, the public is given information about the government and diplomacy through the broadcasting of meetings and press conferences where government officials deliver such information. This can be viewed and listened to through different sources of media such as television, the Internet, or radio. Only some information about the government and diplomacy is released to the public. By being knowledgeable about certain information, the government and higher authorities are able to keep the nation safe. Specific details of plans, ideas, and actions of those protecting us are kept from the public so that our safety is maintained. Executive Order 13526 sets forth “a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information”. The U.S. Department of State says that one must be granted security clearance to access classified information. In conclusion, to some extent, the public should have unfettered access to information about the government and diplomacy. What is kept from the public keeps the public protected. The public should be able to ask about things that concern them.
“A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents.” The New York Times. The
New York Times, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“A Selection From the Cache of Diplomatic Dispatches.” The New York Times. The New York
Times, 27 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“Amnesty International Hails WikiLeaks and Guardian as Arab Spring ‘catalysts’” The Guardian.
The Guardian, 12 May 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Anita. “How Did Wikileaks Start And What Is The Goal Behind Their Actions? - Julian Assange
Wikileaks Quotes.” Julian Assange Wikileaks Quotes. N.p., 05 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 Jan.
“Answers to Readers’ Questions About State’s Secrets.” The New York Times. The New York
Times, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Bachrach, Judy. “WikiHistory: Did the Leaks Inspire the Arab Spring?” World Affairs Journal.
World Affairs Journal, July-Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Doyne, Shannon, and Holly Qjalvo. “The Ethics of the War Logs: Debating the Pros and Cons of
WikiLeaks.” The Learning Network The Ethics of the War Logs Debating the Pros and
Cons of WikiLeaks Comments. The New York Times, 29 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Fildes, Jonathan. “What Is Wikileaks? - BBC News.” BBC News. BBC, 7 Dec. 2010. Web. 15
Jacquette, Rogene Fisher. “Rights Groups Join Call for WikiLeaks to Censor Afghan Files.” At
War Rights Groups Join Call for WikiLeaks to Censor Afghan Files Comments. The New
York Times, 10 Aug. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“Julian Assange Biography.” - Childhood, Life Achievements & Timeline. The Famous People
Society for Recognition of Famous People, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“Julian Assange.” Julian Assange. NNDB, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“Julian Assange Sex Assault Allegations: Timeline - BBC News.” BBC News. BBC, 12 Oct. 2015.
Karhula, Päivikki. “What Is the Effect of WikiLeaks for Freedom of Information?” IFLA –. IFLA,
Landler, Mark, and J. David Goodman. “Clinton Says U.S. Diplomacy Will Survive ‘Attack’.” The
New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Mazzetti, Mark. “U.S. Expands Role of Diplomats in Spying.” The New York Times. The New
York Times, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
McKey, Robert. “WikiLeaks Reports Attack on Its Web Site.” The Lede WikiLeaks Reports Attack
on Its Web Site Comments. The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Noort, Rogier. “What Is WikiLeaks?” - Quora. Quora, 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Sauter, Molly, and Jonathan Zittrain. “Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks.”
MIT Technology Review. MIT, 09 Dec. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Schmitt, Eric. “In Disclosing Secret Documents, WikiLeaks Seeks ‘Transparency’.” The New York
Times. The New York Times, 25 July 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Shane, Scott, and Andrew W. Lehren. “Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy.” The
New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
Tate, Julie. “Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years in WikiLeaks Case.” Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“United States Diplomatic Cables Leak.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Jan.
“Whistleblower.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.
“WikiLeaks Video.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.