Tutorial 6 - Week 7

Wikileaks; a shining example of transparent publishing or a risky social tool that endangers lives?

I've always felt that transparency in publishing is critical, especially when it involves the publication of government activities. There has been criticism over Wikileaks' policy on transparency with fears that it could put people's lives at risk as it names those involved in given activities, such as in the Afghan War Diaries. However, the activities of governments and those with authority (primarily in wars) results in multiple casualties on both sides. Are the actions of Wikileaks any different to those of governments?

Wikileaks really demonstrates the amount of power one is given when publishing, a power which higher authorities seem very unwilling to share. Wikileaks is providing the modern version of the effect the printing press had; the printing press allowed for the masses to be educated, and with knowledge came the all-important ability to question. Wikileaks has given the average person that same knowledge, and same ability to question and scrutinise the actions of authorities and organisations. It's quite interesting that what can bring down a government or corporation is not physical warfare (in which so much time, money and so many lives gets spent on) but rather, a simple act of publishing. Wikileaks has broken down the wall that separated the public from knowledge and information. However, as they say, ignorance is bliss. With knowledge and power comes responsibility - but for who? With Wikileaks publishing highly confidential (but still within the public right to know) documents, are the public now expected to take some sort of responsibility for the information they read and act? Or are the exposed organisations supposed to take responsibility, aware that the public now know about their dealings?

Wikileaks can also be considered an alternate media, or even the new media (as is my debate topic). When other news corporations are relying on Wikileaks and doing deals with Wikileaks about story publication, then I think it can be said that Wikieaks is the new media. I've also found that Wikileaks' process of researching, verifying and proving sources are more reliable and valid, unlike in traditional media who have often reported stories that have incorrect information, no evidence or are based on untruths, such as here, here and of course, our all time favourite, Kings Cross shooting here.

Rather unfortunately for Julian Assange, I feel his "radical" actions that contradict the status quo have meant that he has been treated like this:

Source:http://www.bonkersworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010.08.24_Julian_Assange.png