Since the WikiLeaks' data dump, various news outlets have been putting different spins on the event. They will continue to do so since Assange was arrested yesterday. The more sane are focussing on how these diclosues, for better or worse, may change the way governments communicate. Others are just out to demonize the human face of the site. Regardless of political persuasion or even interest level you'll find someone has put the spin on this for you.
As ever, The Daily Show, used satire to get to what many people saw in the revelations – that they weren't saying anything too shocking. Non mainstream sources offered equally, albeit unintentionally, funny analyses too. The libertine loons at The Daily Bell are trying disparately to decide if Assange is fighting against the elites (Whoever they are?) or actually an agent of theirs. Several nutjobs are purporting Assange is an agent of the Rothschilds. I'm not going to support this conspiratorial antisemitism. If you don't believe Google “Assange + Rothschild” and count the hits.
Perhaps the tinfoil beany brigade should've read the The Economist 's actual take on WikiLeaks. The article is mostly balanced. The magazine casts Assange as driven a 'messianic' mission while praising the site's early efforts, hence their 2008 New Media Award given to the site. That the articles stresses the WikiLeaks change to focus on US policy hints that the magazine is less than enthusiastic about this direction, unsurprising given the magazine's tendency to support US foreign policy and liberalism generally. Their general view is summed up in the following:
In the Longer term the odds are stacked against secrecy, particularly in countries that practice openness in other areas.
The Guardian claims to be offering the most comprehensive coverage. They've at least got a single page, updated with articles. John Noughton concludes WikiLeak's effects in a direct if heavy-handed way.
Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future behaviour; or they shut down the Internet. Over to them.
My main issue with this summation is the us / them divide. It's not over to them. The Internet might be one of the few places where Foucault's notion of capillary power makes sense. Really WikiLeaks is dragging governments into the cyberage.
Strangely, the Guardian gave John Bolton a platform to use the WikiLeaks's as a tirade against the Obama administration.
All of this underscores the real problem. It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them.
Go straight to the comments. I think they've done a better job at responding to this article. My only question is why The Guardian published this. Was it to wake their readers out of some stupor?
Fred Kaplan in Slate also comes from a Realpolitik view but argues that the leaks, “illustrate the principles about the “great game” of power politics dating back to Thucydides.” And how does he rate America's game play? Relatively high. Rather than embarrassing, he says the leaks show the efficacy of Obama's foreign policy. (Perhaps, that's why the Republicans want Assange dead.)
He sums up by saying:
Obama's statements [at his Noble prize acceptance speech] a resumption of diplomatic practice and principles, as they had been understood by all powers, great and small, for centuries. In this sense, WikiLeaks documents – some of them anyway – show these principles in action.
Fellow Slate writer, Anne Applebaum is equally sanguine about the revelations, but alarmist about the consequences. She thinks the WikiLeaks dump will lead to further secrecy. This goes without saying. However, it's a stretch to think that information flow will vanish. More likely, there'll be months of data inconvenience, akin to air travel post 9/11 with a gradual easing until the next disgruntled government employ decides to listen to Gaa Gaa at work.
On the subject of what to do with Assange, David Weigel wrote that the Republicans are indulging in James Bond fantasies. He also thinks trying Wikileaks as a terrorist organization is a “bad idea in November as it was in August.” The main reason is that WikiLeaks is non-violent. Hitchens just thinks Assange should turn himself in on the weak grounds that Assange has broken with diplomatic traditions. I'd find it easier to take Hitchen's high-minded seriously if he wasn't supporter of a war which was started on false pretences.
Jack Shafer took a different view from others at the website. His “Why I Love WikiLeak's” is a straightforward small government liberal argument. He writes that WikiLeaks “restores our distrust in the institutions that control our lives.” I think that should be the website's motto. (Just an aside – you would think that the right would support WikiLeaks for the same reason. If anything their reaction show how hollow their idea of freedom is – but I'm sure most of you came to that conclusion already.)
Beam commends the leaks for their literary quality. He says the best “read like their own literary genre.” He also points out that this at times excoriating appraisals are to satisfy a readership – departmental heads – who want detailed account. Plus there's the motivation of getting a better posting.
In The Washington Post Christopher Torchia offers a similar a similar appraisal.
[I]F there is a silver lining, it is the revelation or reminder that American diplomats, often maligned at home and abroad, have a gift for language and detail, keen analysis and a wry and mischievous sense of humor.
Perhaps it is why Colin, chose the ones he did.
The analysis in The New York Times was interesting if off the mark. Naom Cohen tried to draw parallels between WikiLeaks and our culture of openness. Cohen misses the point that while the technology which make FaceBook possible is also part of WikiLeaks, the motivations are fundamentally different. WikiLeaks is motivated by a) political convictions and b) Assange's megalomania, neither of which require a confessional culture.
After reading all this my spinis that WikiLeaks should be judged by the outcomes it achieves. As a tool for accountability and transparency it, at the moment, seems quite powerful. However, it could be a glass hammer. Good for one painful blow, useless afterwards . Or worse that the revelations become a type of data-porn, titillating for their illicitness and then forgotten.
To prevent either, WikiLeaks should behave somewhat more conventionally. They will never be part of the established media, and are not entirely comparable. However, rather than merely provoking, they should use the information cautiously and tactically to strive for the kind of change they want.
