WikiLeaks—a new tool to help improve the news media environment

The reading materials are bringing me back to the very time when my friends and I shared news on Chinese Facebook about the arrest of the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, out of anger and curious. We are so surprised that the America and the Europe want to put him into jail just for what WikiLeaks do about the Afghan War: In July, 2010, it released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available to the public, which was a real big image-devastating to the America army. “What?! Really?! The symbol of freedom—the America starts to control as well?! What a big shock!” My friends and I are very confused that time. We all admire the courage of WikiLeaks. So, whether it is media or not, I firmly believe that WikiLeaks is totally under the protection of The First Amendment.

Then, in my eyes, WikiLeaks is not actually journalism. Firstly since it is clearly not run by journalists — and to a great extent relies on journalists at the New York Times, The Guardian and other news outlets to do the heavy lifting in terms of analysis of the documents it holds and distributes. Secondly, without it, we may not have the access to those eye-catching and shocking facts which serve a role of surveillance to help people make our living places a better place.

In other words, it is more like a new tool, and is a very important one. Like Mathew says: “WikiLeaks is at least an instrument of journalism. In other words, it is a part of the larger ecosystem of news media that has been developing with the advent of blogs, wikis, Twitter and all the other publishing tools we have now.” It is an important ways of getting us closer to the truth. The evidence is the word that Doug Saunders  — the European bureau chief for Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail — has noted, WikiLeaks is not that different from the brown envelope that the leaker behind the Watergate scandal delivered documents in, especially based on the Afghan War Diary. Therefore, here, I seem to find out the common points; again, it is the ethical dilemma thing we talked about a few days ago in class.

WikiLeaks’ Journalistic Ethics: Need-to-Know

The news media ecosystem has come to be an all-encompassing conglomerate of anything which discovers, disseminates, aggregates, or comments on the happenings of the day.  WikiLeaks, under this term, is certainly included.  With a self-stated mission of providing the truth without “fear or favour,” it’s hard to question the motives of a not-for-profit organization which aims to do what journalism should do: inform the masses of what’s really going on.

Whether or not WikiLeaks is journalistic doesn’t seem like much of a debate.  The real debate seems to be whether or not what WikiLeaks is doing is ethical.  Journalistic organizations may tout a healthy ethical code, but the fact is, ethics is a constant source of concern and debate in the field for a reason: journalists are constantly toeing the line in order to find a good story, expose wrongdoing, or get famous.

WikiLeaks is different though.  The organization waits for the leak to come to them and always releases a source document to support the claim.  As far as the act of receiving information from an inside source and releasing it to the public goes, this isn’t a new concept.  WikiLeaks didn’t invent the light bulb but they may be burning it out.  My contention with WikiLeaks doesn’t come from its stated mission or from the debate over legality.  My contention with WikiLeaks comes from its apparent lack of concern for human life.  I realize that the organization’s website “about” section explains that sometimes WikiLeaks delays the release of certain documents or removes certain details in order to protect “life and limb.”  However, the fact that WikiLeaks has possession of source documents that, by the very nature of them being released to individuals outside of the classified chain, could result in a loss of life for human intelligence operatives makes me question their decision making.

I do not doubt WikiLeaks’ status as a journalistic organization nor its legal basis.  I do, however, doubt the organizations judgment and whether or not they should be accepting information that they know could potentially cause a loss of life to operatives who have put their lives on the line for the very freedom Wikileaks is fighting for.

Filter For Good: The Journalist

Kovach and Rosenstiehl posed the question: “If we citizens are our own editors, at times even our own reporters, what do we need from the press?”  In looking at an organization like Wikileaks, I believe we can see and start to understand the next step for journalism.  With the democratic nature of the internet and the bourgeoning ease of instant communication, we can see the role of the ‘press’, so to speak, two-fold: to be an outlet for information and news; and to be a filter for the news which will clarify the information distributed, so as to help citizens understand.

Take for example Tuesday’s earthquake, I got Tweets and Facebook posts instantly from people I knew all over the East coast announcing that they had just experienced an earthquake. So i knew that there had been an earthquake, but it took several minutes for news sources to begin disseminating information about the quake.  It should be obvious to journalists that we are no longer the first news source for people, meaning that we need to be that much better and more reliable.

We should still be quick about our stories, making an effort to inform consumers as soon as possible as to what has occurred.  But the focus needs to be on enlightening and enriching audiences with the information they do not already know.  I saw the social networks light up with the news of the earthquake and waited patiently for CNN to send me an notification as well.  I was pleasantly surprised when the notification informed me of the epicenter and magnitude of the earthquake. This is what we need to expect, that the news sources, while seemingly lagging behind the social networks will fill in the gaps and really provide the information.

Turning back to Wikileaks, we see that the organization provides an important example of the other aspect of journalism.  The practice is about getting information to the public which should be known.  Wikileaks set out to provide an anonymous outlet for sources to post information.  In some cases, the risks associated with filtering this information through a reporter are too great and the information simply needs to be exposed.  Wikileaks provides an important service appropriate for the age of the internet.

I think Wikileaks is an important aspect of the news media ecosystem in that it provides for the first stage of life for a story.  The information can safely be posted to the internet and good journalists can run with whatever story they find.  Journalists should be able to look at that information and discern the important parts so that they can turn the information into a clear, concise story which will inform the public. In this sense, I believe Wikileaks to be the pioneer of the new ecosystem in a digital arms race.

While technology continues to improve, the ease of tracing information also improves.  Wikileaks is simply there to increase the protection of those who would release information that will inevitably be traced. Therefore Wikileaks is really more of an updated version of the ‘anonymous source’ aspect of journalism which has been around since the profession arose.  Essentially, Wikileaks provides the first step in establishing a new digital ecosystem in which information will be distributed via the web constantly, it now becomes the reporter’s job to filter that information into a coherent story for citizens to understand.

Yes. Yes it is.

WikiLeaks is absolutely part of the journalistic cannon. I need only point to the first lines of its About section: “WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public.” See? It’s right there in the intro.

As easy as it would be for me to just end my blog post there (and believe me the time would be very beneficial to my ECA project), I apparently have to defend this argument.

The importance of WikiLeaks lies in its operations. Its team breaks stories that would never make it to the public eye, and they are able to provide every extra source to further prove the validity of their content. In many ways, their method is the most absolute form of journalism; how can anyone deny the blatant murders of several innocent people when the video shows it so clearly? Furthermore, is highly unlikely that the torturing of prisoners would have been a huge, blown out story without the coverage that WikiLeaks provided. These injustices to humanity must be brought to the public’s attention, and this typically causes reform.

WikiLeak’s opponents come from the same principles as every other news organizations’ problems. If that’s not the kind of news you’re interested in, then don’t watch it. The same thing happens to obviously conservative Fox News and its liberal counterparts. There are some things that possibly shouldn’t be reported (unless you’re James Bond, secret agents need that kind of protection), but the majority of the content seems to act as a solid way to keep the government on its toes.

Furthermore, the fact that WikiLeaks actually saves articles that have been censored is an incredible feature of true journalism that cannot be ignored. By getting around the censors, WikiLeaks has discovered a loophole to get the truth to the masses. The world is not a pretty place, and it’s good that there’s an unabashed news source that is willing to prove that.

 

WikiLeaks vs. the New York Times

Truthfully, I should probably state that until today I had yet to visit the WikiLeaks site. Even during the days when Julian Assange was receiving daily coverage, I didn’t feel the need to go to WikiLeaks. Everyone around me was discussing what was contained in the diplomatic cables, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to go to WikiLeaks and read the reports. After visiting the site today, I must admit that overall I was a bit disappointed. With all the talk surrounding WikiLeaks I expected more than a typical news website, which is what WikiLeaks felt like to me.

Maybe I felt this way because I agreed with what Aaron Bady said regarding WikiLeaks and the New York Times. Bady’s point was that WikiLeaks is essentially performing the same functions as a traditional news publication that receives protection under the First Amendment. Bady states, “…it’s difficult to criminalize what WikiLeaks has done without also making a criminal out of the New York Times.”

As Ingram points out, “WikiLeaks’ stated intention is to bring transparency to the political process and expose wrongdoing. Isn’t that the same thing that the Times does?” While one organization, the Times, is a reputable news organization and the other, WikiLeakes, is an organization with little to no history, their respective purposes are similar. The difference between these two organizations lies in their methodologies for obtaining data and ability to act as a source for news.

Perhaps WikiLeakes is performing one component of an emerging new media ecosystem. Ingram makes an interesting argument when he states that, “media – a broad term that includes what we think of as journalism – has been dis-aggreated or atomized; in other words, split into its component parts…” WikiLeaks serves the role of uber-watchdog by providing complete transparently and acting as a news source when it comes to government processes. Ingram hypothesizes that this role is typically bundled with other functions of journalism, such as civic responsibility, and as part of its bundle may not be as visible.

As the role WikiLeaks serves is a component of journalism, it is hard not to see WikiLeaks as journalistic in some way. Watchdog or investigative journalism serves the purpose of highlighting or uncovering wrongdoing by public figures and usually leaves its readers with less than favorable feelings. In the case of WikiLeaks, they don’t fulfill another role within journalism, and as such may be exclusively associated with the unsavory role of watchdog. But, does this make them any less journalistic than the other five newspapers (i.e., El Pais, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and the New York Times) that released the cables in a redacted format on Nov. 28, 2010?

 

Unbundling

By Yanqin Lu

WikiLeaks has been an influential website since it leaks more and more information that some individuals or organizations do not suppose to publicize. And people are always debating about its journalism property.

I could not agree more with the statement that WikiLeaks is one component of an emerging media ecosystem. In today’s media environment, media organizations need such an independent source of documents so that they could get more information that is without decoration. So why cannot a news source become a component of media ecosystem? In addition, as Ey Williams argues, WikiLeaks could get us more closer to truth. Recording truth is a principal task of media organizations, so WikiLeaks should be considered as part of media ecosystem.

However, I could not agree completely with the notion that WikiLeaks is journalistic. Admittedly, WikiLeaks should be protected as one component of media ecosystem because I agree with Aaron Bady that society needs to protect the act of journalism rather than those practice it. Nevertheless, I do not think that Assange could be considered as a journalist and WikiLeaks is journalistic. As far I am concerned, a journalist should not only uncover what they get, they should also publish it in the journalistic style and guide the public to discuss the topic in a right way. In this aspect, I have to say that WikiLeaks is not totally journalistic.

In a word, I do admire what WikiLeaks has contributed to the media industry and even democracy. However, I would like to make several suggestions. Firstly, WikiLeaks should try their best to confirm the accuracy of documents before uncovering them. Also, I suggest that an independent institution could be set up. And the institution’s work is to evaluate whether the exposure of documents would extremely harm the harmony of the world. After all, people all like peace and hate conflicts between countries.

An Ugly but Needed Food Source

As part of an emerging news ecosystem, I see WikiLeaks as being equivalent to that which is being fed and fed off of or the middleman that Ingram details in “Is WikiLeaks the Beginning of a New Form of Media?”

Although much has been tossed around for the last year about whether Julian Assange is a journalist or if WikiLeaks is journalism, or the fact that if WikiLeaks is under such scrutiny then so should be The New York Times, it seems quite clear that it is most certainly a component to the news as we now know it.

As Kevin Zeese notes in a guest essay, “If there were ever a doubt about whether the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is “a real journalist,” recent events should erase all those doubts. Indeed, they should put him at the forefront of a movement to democratize journalism and empower people.”

Looking at it simply, WikiLeaks serves as the modern-day replacement for transactions that were taking place in the past within journalism. The articles by Ingram refer to the brown envelope of information that used to be delivered anonymously to newsgathering organizations.  Informants have always been part of the process, so now that the rest of news and the world network and function digitally and interactively, why is not surprising that this too has gone online? It is a way to distribute leaked information quickly and equally.

To be journalistic I don’t think inherently means the act of being a journalist or reporting the news. There are many facets to making and distributing the news and in the case of investigating, obtaining information, and exposing government or business corruption, I think there is most definitely a journalistic aspect to all of these things — They are all necessary to reporting the news. And therefore, WikiLeaks and its endeavors can be defined as journalistic.

Going back to the concept of an ecosystem, not just one animal or plant exists there or it would not be called a system. I agree with PhD student Aaron Bady, who said in the Ingram essays that asked why Assange couldn’t be both a hacker and a journalistic and that society need to protect all acts of journalism, regardless of who is practicing them.  An ecosystem needs many parts to make it work, and WikiLeaks is providing a necessary food source to the emerging news forum, albeit a kind of ugly food source at times, but a source all the same.

Pushing Beyond

The shifting citizen patterns described by Bennett, Lewis and Herms definitely have significance beyond the conventional notion of citizenship. All three look at how the changing face of the citizenry and the ever-changing digital world are redefining how citizens matter and how they are shaping the democracies they exist within.

In Hermes’ essay, he discusses how the internet is not necessarily shooting a hole through the old notion of citizenship, but rather adding to it and changing how citizens interact in their community. Hermes actually discusses how these new practices don’t necessary always fit with the old citizenship notion, but people are still being informed. The difference is now that citizens are engaging in discussion and looking for community by participating blogs and other mediated discussions online.

For Lewis, he reports that the notion of citizenship is still “robust,” in theory and that it is being maintained by the ideal that journalists remain objective and strive to inform the public in a transparent way. He feels that journalists must push themselves in this era to re-conceive news and deliver it in a very transparent way. By aiming to tell stories in this way, it allows the community to “be in the know,” and empowers them as vital members of their community.

Finally, Bennett focuses on young citizens and challenges all facets of a community – educators, the media, government, politicians, scholars and the actual young people to challenge themselves to continually learn and reinvent themselves so they are accessible and welcoming for young people to engage in the community. Challenging them to be authentic in their approach and appeal to the young people on their level and through the mediums and platforms in which they connect.

For the future of news, these shifting citizen patterns area issue a continually mounting challenge, and “up the ante,” so to speak, for news to fit within this ever-emerging notion of citizenship and all of them include figuring out hw to make news interactive and to involve citizens in the process of not only creating and commenting on the news, but be part of the editing and evaluating process.

Idealism: Worth Discussing, but Not Much Else?

I think that Lewis is correct in saying that much of what we view of journalism is highly idealistic and does not—possibly never can—live up to those ideals.  I am just as guilty of this misguided idealism as many of my compatriots, mostly because I HAVE to believe that it’s possible to stick up for some of those great notions rather than let them all fly away.

Citizenship is linked to nationality, and for Americans, so is the media.  Much of our national pride is based on that idea of the First Amendment—the freedom of speech, media, and religion.  But just as Lewis points out with Citizenship, those ideas are fairly optimistic and not always enacted equally.

Lewis, Hermes, and Hughes all have great notions that journalism/politics should be taken from the elite to center more on the everyday reader—that they should engender citizenship for everyone better by taking more readers into account and broadening the scope of inclusiveness.

In some sense, media has shifted this power structure.  I’m thinking of the rise of more cheap video cameras/phones that help record news stories wherever they might happen.  This has helped to tape abuses of power, like police brutality, among “fringe” groups.

These stories have broken and shifted the political and journalistic structure.  In such cases, the person taping the incident is practicing journalism and citizenship by using media to engage in a discourse about power and to bring down corrupt political practices.

(That doesn’t mean the groups in power won’t fight back.)

These discussions of shifting patterns do matter because the first step toward actually changing the status quo is in accepting and discussing the problems therein.  I don’t know, however, that they mean anything for a REAL change in the future of news just yet.

I say this because news is still, inherently, unfair.  Even if more people have access to news content in the form of forums, commenting, and the ability to upload their own stories/photos, all of these things are highly dependent on access to, and knowledge of, technology.

Yes, many people have wider use of these technologies, shifting some of the existing power structure to the non-politicians.  But the most disenfranchised of the nation still don’t have that voice because they have no—or limited—access to the technology and education that allows them to interact in these conversations.

Also, as we have discussed in class, with a glut of information, stories, and voices, there is not a lot of attention to go around.  Unless the stories make it into some bigger media outlet, they are unlikely to be seen.

Future citizenship journalism

Frankly speaking, as I am reading the Bennett’s essay, I suddenly realize that what he says is really happening around me, wherever I am. How slow I am to find out now that with the emergence and boom of new media, internet, for example, people are concerning more and more about the society we live in, and are becoming excellent citizens. Especially the young generations, which are the main points of Bennett’s statements.

My younger brother, for instance, when I was the same age as his, as a teenager, I was more interested into pop stars, interesting movies and so on. But, my brother, almost every day after classes, he surfs the internet as soon as possible, no longer just about pop stars, movies, games etc., instead he often goes to different kinds of news websites, and so do my lots of friends. Therefore, new media has made us become a better citizen.

Besides, in my opinion, the main idea that Lewis and Hermes want us, particularly journalists, to know is that in order to help gradually build peoples’ senses of good citizenship, it is very important and necessary for journalists to build good citizenship between the lines in their reports first. Just like Lewis says: “But news, more than other cultural form, carries the burden of defining the world in which citizens operate.”

However, it is not to say that in today’s news citizens are excluded, according to the essays, in one form or another, the news makes frequent reference to citizens or publics. But, because they do not propose, initiate, debate ore engage, they are like ‘extras’ in the news. Consequently, what we should do now is to provide citizens with more enticing and engaging news about their living cities, to put more city-concerned news on center stages. And this is the exact image they want future media to build.

Finally, using a sentence in Hermes’ articles where the essence exists to conclude, these are all about “Questions of what we expect from the news as a citizenship medium, and questions of how citizenship is nurtured and bolstered more generally are of evident importance now that new technologies are taken up and are changing the media landscape.”