Will WikiLeaks unravel the American 'secret government'?

[Magda Hassan]

How many leaks does it take to become a threat to humanity?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Thursday, December 9, 2010 - 4:32 PM Share



While the demonization of Julian Assange continues apace, the following thought occurred to me (it probably occurred to you already). Suppose a reporter like David Sanger or Helene Cooper of the New York Times had been given a confidential diplomatic cable by a disgruntled government employee (or "unnamed senior official"). Suppose it was one of the juicier cables recently released by Wikileaks. Suppose further that Sanger or Cooper had written a story based on that leaked information, and then put the text of the cable up on the Times website so that readers could see for themselves that the story was based on accurate information. Would anyone be condemning them? I doubt it. Whoever actually leaked the cable might be prosecuted or condemned, but the journalists who published the material would probably be praised, and their colleagues would just be jealous that somebody else got a juicy scoop.
So if one leaked cable is just normal media fodder, how about two or three? What about a dozen? What's the magic number of leaks that turns someone from an enterprising journalist into the Greatest Threat to our foreign policy since Daniel Ellsberg? In fact, hardly anyone seems to be criticizing the Times or Guardian for having a field day with the materials that Wikileaks provided to them (which is still just a small fraction of the total it says it has), and nobody seems to hounding the editors of these publications or scouring the penal code to find some way to prosecute them.
I don't know if the sex crime charges against Assange in Sweden have any merit, and I have no idea what sort of person he really is (see Robert Wright here for a thoughtful reflection on the latter issue). I also find it interesting that the overwrought U.S. reaction to the whole business seems to be reinforcing various anti-American stereotypes. But the more I think about it, the less obvious it is to me why the man is being pilloried for doing wholesale what establishment journalists do on a retail basis all the time.

I agree that some journalist do use leaks which become the basis of their story but much of this story doesn't work for me. There have been plenty of people who have leaked stuff to a journalist and then said journalist does nothing with it. Also there are plenty of journalists who've had the leaks and the story but higher up the food chain don't want to touch it or it gets mangled beyond recognition. The concentration of the MSM has resulted in a much more managed and packaged media. Often more in common with PR than journalism. The guy writing this story seems to think that the media is 'free'. It isn't really and that is why Wikileaks is such a threat to them. It is not in their control even if they use it themselves for their own purposes. If the NYT and other media had been doing their job to tell the real news there would be no need to invent Wikileaks and it would be the NYT and other media in the firing line if they were really talking truth to power or showing the emperor has no clothes.