Posted on 29 Jul 2010 at 10:52pm By GavinoEver since British Luddites destroyed industrial machinery because it required less human labor, new technologies have been greeted with both wonderment and apprehension. Liberals are cheering on WikiLeaks for a variety of reasons but this new use of the internet could undermine modern democracies and ultimately lead to new limits being placed on political freedom.
A basic belief on the left is that the war in Afghanistan will continue only so long as the U.S. and its allies choose to wage it. If the allies pull out, the war will be over. Leaking these Pentagon documents compromises the allied forces, undermines political support for the combat operations and therefore makes the end of the war nearer.
Things aren't always as they seem...
This is a simplistic and minority liberal view. The obvious risks of a withdrawal now are that anti-western terrorist elements once again will be able to organize 9/11 type attacks, while supporters of democracy in Afghanistan will be overrun and murdered, as happened when United States forces left Vietnam in the 1970s.
The release of the leaked information was carefully staged. Three reliably left of center, anti-war publications were purposely selected to spread it – the New York Times in America, the Guardian in the United Kingdom and Der Spiegel in Germany.
This media manipulation raises further concerns about the efficacy of traditional news organizations. True, public relations professionals target media organizations with tailored information every day, some of which is “embargoed” to give journalists time to prepare copy before the rush to publication. However, in the case of WikiLeaks, the objective behind the targeting of just three newspapers, combined with the careful management of the dissemination process, was to try to force changes to the policies of sovereign governments.
In short, WikiLeaks was manipulating the media to drive its political ambitions. If its objective was simply to allow the Pentagon documents to be read, it would have made them available to all journalists without favor. But WikiLeaks is accountable to no one and has deliberately obscured its operations to evade possible criminal prosecution.
Some liberal journalists are reaching extraordinarily self-serving conclusions from this episode. Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post believes the choice of the three liberal, anti-war newspapers by the liberal, anti-war WikiLeaks actually demonstrates the superiority of the mainstream media over bloggers and other internet news sites that do not have the capability to analyze complex Pentagon papers. She portrays it as a defense of journalism.
In fact, the new media has proved itself more able, and more objective, than the mainstream media. Uncovering Dan Rather’s attempt to undermine President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign with phony draft documents is one of the most glaring examples of bloggers trumping the big guys.
A true test of WikiLeaks’ objectivity would be for it to publish details of Iran’s nuclear weapons program or China’s cyber-attacks or Russia’s political corruption. But don’t expect to see that anytime soon. WikiLeaks is essentially a clearing house for the left to inflict damage on western and capitalist interests.
Ultimately, the danger for western democracies is that this type of liberal self-indulgence undermines freedom itself. It negatively impacts national security both in terms of the immediate threat it presents to individuals (which WikiLeaks has no expertise in evaluating) and the willingness, or otherwise, of nations and people to risk joining with western democracies when future conflicts arise. And it makes restrictions on free speech more attractive to politicians.
Portraying WikLeaks as a defender of journalism, or a bastion of free speech, is nothing short of risible. For all its novelty and Napster-like posturing, it is at its core another far left group trying to further leftist objectives. It is not a newspaper or broadcaster.
The three newspapers may argue that others would have published this information had they not done so. That may be true, but the fact remains that it is they who have willingly allowed themselves to be manipulated by a secretive and unaccountable third party organization. And they are proud of it. Their audiences should take this as an accurate measure of their objectivity.
A brilliant analysis! The leaker deserves the book throwing at him for disloyalty. Most of the information leaked though has to some extent been rendered out of date by McChrystal’s policy over the last 12 months, although the leaks show what actually happened earlier. This will not necessarily reflect well on the authors of some of the documents.
Perhaps that person thought they owed their loyalty to the democracy of the US- not its government or Pentagon…