WikiJournalism

Julian Assange,the founder of WikiLeaks currently in flight from Swedish authorities for allegations of sexual assault,has reignited an old debate about press freedom and journalistic ethics. To sum it up: how do we know the dancer from the dance? In proclaiming the birth of a new journalism,has Assange done what the media should logically extend itself to doing (if its not doing so already),or has he assumed a complicity and inevitability that neednt characterise the media as a whole? Is this one dancers steps were examining,or the steps of the dance itself?Despite our age of disclosures,officialdom persists in preserving its power through secret communication. Its this WikiLeaks sought to puncture by publishing 76,000 intelligence-military reports from the Afghan war in July; following up in October with almost 400,000 secret documents from the Iraq frontlines. These are valuable for raw facts that wouldnt have made it to the public and enforced insights into the reality of warfare. But WikiLeaks also made public names of informants that could get put them in danger,apart from tactical information that could endanger public safety.WikiLeaks disclosures are not the Pentagon Papers,as Steve Coll argued in The New Yorker,and overvaluing them is unnecessary. However,the heart of the problem is this: in demanding absolute accountability of others,WikiLeaks hasnt held itself similarly accountable. The New York Times and Washington Post successfully defended publishing the Pentagon Papers in court,increasing their impact. This time,the Times worked on the WikiLeaks documents,organised them and pointed out whats of value because in each case,then and now,certain conventions of news dissemination couldnt be thrown out with the bathwater. Journalism should tell truth to power,without disregarding the rule of law. The real challenge for organisations like WikiLeaks is credible publishing on a sustained basis,in keeping with the ideals of press freedom they call for.