By iBerk
In a move that seems as though it will evoke debate for months, the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks disclosed 6 years of classified Afghan War documents today. These reports paint the picture of a struggling war effort, of the rising strength of the Taliban. In addition, the relationship between the Pakistani spy agency and the Afghan insurgency is shown to be well established, lending discomfort to the fact that the United States provides well over $1 Billion aid each year to the Pakistani government. Further details have been published by the New York Times here, note that the Times gained access to the files one month ago.
This article is not, however, designed to be a synthesis of the consequences of the release of this information, but rather as a look at the organization Wikileaks. That being said, it is not as though there was no evidence of a link between Pakistan and Afghan insurgents, and the reports end at the point when the Obama Administration instituted a new strategy in Afghanistan.
Wikileaks first caught my attention perhaps 18 months ago. It is an organization dedicated to the publication of classified or secret information. However at that time, its mission seemed much more clear. As I understood it, Wikileaks had been founded on the principle of Freedom of Information, as a way for whistleblowers to publish information whilst minimizing their chances of discovery and retribution. It seemed to advocate and provide a substrate for openness as a pathway for activism, however it seemed unbiased in its reporting. It seemed that its sole priority was the dissemination of classified and secret information. If it had a bias, it was towards itself, towards its absolute freedom to leak information based on freedom of speech. It seemed as though it was inherently opposed to reporting this information in a biased manner, in showing any bias itself. Instead, Wikileaks wanted to appear as a third party whose sole purpose was to allow information to be spread.
Personally, I remain unsure of my feelings on this policy, disclosure for the sake of disclosure. I feel as though there are certain cases where information should not be available for consumption by the entire world, merely because it is information.
As evidenced in its current attitudes, however, this original intent has degraded into activism and a distinct political bias in the recent actions and disclosures of Wikileaks. The site was down for a period of almost 6 months at the beginning of 2010 as it attempted to raise the funds necessary for continuation of its services. When it came back from this break, however, a bias could be seen in not necessarily the selection of leaks, but in their self generated press releases. In particular, this bias can be seen in their twitter feed. From July 13, "The covert smear campaign against WikiLeaks: what you need to know". Clearly, Wikileaks has become much more inflammatory and aggressive in its own self defense. In a period when it published little else, despite admitting to possessing thousands of pages of documents, they chose to publish a United States Intelligence Report that they had obtained on themselves.
Aside from this self-aggrandizing bias, which is perhaps excusable, there is a noticeable trait towards Wikileaks introducing bias in relation to the actual content of its reports. In a recent publication of a video depicting the slaughter of a Reuters journalist by a US assault helicopter, Wikileaks clearly introduced spin, releasing with greater publicity an edited and annotated version of the film, entitled "Collateral Murder". In keeping with their original mission, it seems as though Wikileaks should have simply published the original video, perhaps accompanied by an unbiased analysis, and allowed the world of journalism to decide what was important, whether the killing comprised absolute cold-blooded murder. Having seen the video, at least in part, I can say that the actions and attitudes of the Americans flying the helicopter were despicable, however I do not believe that Wikileaks should ideally be making these decisions.
In their latest leak, Wikileaks continues to editorialize between the lines. A recent tweet illustrates: "Let the spin begin: White House offers 'advice' on Wikileaks to reporters". In fact, this can be seen as true; a White House memo commenting on the release can be seen as the introduction of editorializing and spin. At the same time, however, the wording of that post is clearly demonstrative of a bias against the White House, against the US establishment. It is not as though the US Administration was the first to comment on the release, indeed, it would have been shocking if it had remained silent.
Please note, I am not criticizing the release of this information. I am not attempting to defend the US Government, or suggesting in any way that the situation in Afghanistan is not grim. Rather, I am stating that I believe that Wikileaks does not serve itself well by self editorializing. Their original mission seemed positive, the exposure of classified information. I hope that they have not abandoned this goal in favor of overt activism.
I believe that an analysis of the meaning of the information disclosed by Wikileaks will take time. I do not believe there will be no conflict, or disagreement in this analysis. That is why the decision to disclose the information to the New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel was a valuable decision. The Guardian did importantly note that the Obama Administration had instituted a change in US policy in December 2009, the same time at which the memos stop. In addition, the Guardian has relegated some of the memos as absolutely absurd, as patently untrue. Whatever the case, the memos should be read with a discerning eye, and attention should be paid to numerous analyses.
Wikileaks does offer a potentially valuable service, provided they do not take their mission too far. However, I believe that editorializing their releases does not help their cause, and serves no service to the global community.
No comments:
Post a Comment