Mon, 26 Jul 2010 5:54p.m.
By James Murray
Today’s leak of US military intelligence from the war in Afghanistan has been touted by the Guardian as the biggest leak in history.
Apparently, US authorities have known for a long time that this highly sensitive information was effectively out of their hands and have asked Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, to meet them in a bid to shore up the holes in their system.
So far the enigmatic publisher of the world’s secrets has refused to comply.
It would have been thrilling to work for the Guardian, Der Spiegel or New York Times over this time period, because these were the news organisations entrusted by Assange to sift through the reams of information contained in the more than 90,000 documents.
They were able to publish the details of this leak with detailed analysis and innovative graphical displays – some of the best online content I have seen.
This careful choosing of media to give a nod and a wink to is a canny move from Assange, a man who, though revered by many for his commitment to freedom of speech, is viewed with suspicion by others.
His picks are all left-wing or liberal media that are sympathetic to WikiLeaks cause. In the case of the Guardian he has also chosen a news organisation that is a pioneer in the way news media is displayed and distributed online.
These papers do not see WikiLeaks as a threat to their coverage, they are immersed in a new world of online political and international news. The days of journalists building trusted contacts within organisations are certainly not over, as some may fear, we just have a unique new tool as a news source.
But there are some pitfalls to be avoided here.
An unusual paradox for a site that is dedicated to leaking secret reports, and therefore open information, is that it must by definition keep aspects of its existence closed. The protection of sources is vital for the site’s continued existence, and those looking to leak information must feel confident they will not be outed.
This brings in a problem of trust and political bias, major news organisations will jump on WikiLeaks bigger leaks as they are huge news stories but at some point in this process good editors are going to want to feel that they are running a story backed up with thorough information.
How does Assange provide this feeling of security?
Working closely with trusted news sources like the Guardian and New York Times presumably allows Assange to give a bit of the game away without fearing that his sources will be compromised. The consumer is also assured by the presence of these news behemoths.
In terms of political bias – it is interesting that Assange’s most prominent leaks have been anti-war in nature, obviously a common cause of the left. With the internet’s propensity to propagate information monopolies (look at the success of Google, YouTube and Wikipedia – their closest rivals are miles behind), WikiLeaks is also in danger of undermining itself as a politically motivated source, devoid of competition and rigorous questioning of its own methods.
Again, the use of mainstream media here can help Assange – the internet has cultivated a wide array of varying news content sites (in an opposite manner to the way in which Google et al have become monopolies), and they will all have a different take on the information WikiLeaks provides.
Assange must be careful, I believe, to cultivate an image of someone who disseminates information rather than editorialises it. This is something he seems to know – as is indicated by this interview – and he will be most powerful if he maintains an unbiased position.
This is a watershed moment for WikiLeaks and I believe Assange has negotiated it smartly. To publish such a hugely important leak, without the reassuring support of the Guardian, NYT and Der Spiegel would have opened his organisation to considerable attack from his opponents.
By taking this to the liberal mainstream – Assange has made such criticisms socially unacceptable.