Over the break, perhaps only one name invaded the homes of Americans more persistently than even our jolly holiday hero Santa Claus: Julian Assange. But instead of slipping down chimneys and leaving presents for naïve children, Assange, founder of the international government watchdog website Wikileaks, which serves as a conduit to publish private and classified media provided by anonymous sources, hid under our trees a smorgasbord of controversy gift-wrapped with bow, erupting in a media frenzy that questions what we consider to be freedom of information, or lack of for that matter, on virtually every level.
Not caught up on the Wikileaks saga? Here’s a quick crash course: On Nov. 28 2010, Wikileaks, along with several other major newspapers worldwide, began to publish leaked confidential – but not top secret – diplomatic cables, or intergovernmental messages, from over 200 US embassies around the globe. The contents of the messages ranged from criticisms of American foreign policy to US intelligence and counterintelligence measures to even political maneuvers regarding climate change. While this was not the first posting of classified US documents to be featured on the site, it was the first to produce such overwhelming response from both the government and the public alike, turning a before relatively unknown Assange into one of the most recognizable figures in global politics.
Shortly after, an unrelated arrest warrant for Assange was issued in Sweden on Dec. 7 for sexual-based offenses that allegedly occurred the previous summer in two separate cities. The warrant came almost four months after an August investigation into the allegations was dropped by Stockholm police, leaving some to suspect foul play, suggesting that the whole case is merely a smear campaign aimed at relocating Assange, an Australian national, to a jurisdiction where it would be easier to make extradition to the US possible, where he would surely face heavy charges.
While Assange may appear to be perfect personification for Freedom of the Press, many still remain on both sides of the issue, amounting to yet another polarizing debate in the midst of a contentious legislature that already has those on the right and left at each others’ throats. Critics accuse Wikileaks of being “reckless” by ignoring the repercussions of making such sensitive information public, while proponents argue that the site performs a necessary service in a current state of broken governmental accountability.
What will happen next is anyone’s guess, but whatever course of action taken will certainly have enormous influence over the balance between access and dissemination of information.
A key indicator of the evolution of technology rests on the ability to access more information faster and easier, and as the past decade, or century for that matter, has been any indicator that ability will only continue to increase exponentially. Even outside of the political realm, whereas in 2001 one would have to wait over four months for a popular film to be released on video, today most popular movies become widely available, albeit illegally, within just days online via torrent websites and other piracy services.
In other words, if information exists, the world is finding new ways to seize it, regardless of the consequences.
Wikileaks may have just helped to turn the tables on how we as an audience expect journalism to be performed. A growing discontent with the traditional 24-hour news cycle, especially among younger Americans who are turned off by television punditry and rarely pick up a newspaper, could lead to larger desire for a more intrusive, yet honest perspective, such as a site like Wikileaks.
After all, it wasn’t like Assange broke into the Pentagon, stole nuclear missile launch codes and posted them on his blog; most of the leaked information was trivial in nature and of virtually no interest to the majority of Americans, or the world for that matter. But it’s not about that. What Assange and Wikileaks have accomplished is to send a message to governments around the globe that they might not be just as secure as they had thought.
Leave a Reply