http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605408.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions
WikiLeaks and the trouble with transparency
By Richard Cohen
Monday, December 6, 2010; 8:00 PM
The first WikiLeaks moment occurred on Jan. 17, 1998. It was then that Matt
Drudge reported that Bill Clinton had had an affair with a White House intern.
The story, though, was not Drudge's. It was Michael Isikoff's. His employer,
Newsweek, had delayed publication. Drudge went with it - which is to say that
he reported that Newsweek had the story. It took another four days for the
so-called mainstream media to catch up - a story in The Post confirmed it all.
How late! How pitiful!
Now we have the New York Times publishing major parts of the recent cache of
documents that it received not from WikiLeaks and its thoroughly contemptible
founder, Julian Assange, but from the Guardian, a British newspaper. Assange,
it appears, was chagrined by a hard-hitting Times profile of himself. But he
also might have resented the Times' meddling with the earlier release of about
90,000 military documents. We won't know until WikiLeaks' internal cables are
leaked.
What the Clinton scandal and the WikiLeaks disclosures have in common is a sad
collapse of the mainstream media's gatekeeper role. Newsweek presumably had
good reasons to postpone publication of Isikoff's story - reasons that Drudge
did not share. The Times had good cause to parse the WikiLeaks cache - lives
could be in danger - but Assange launched them into cyberspace anyway, not
caring if American interests were damaged. In fact, that might have been the
whole point.
The natural reaction is to want to pop Assange in some way, possibly by
indicting him for violating the totally impractical Espionage Act of 1917 or,
in the superheated imaginations of some, by declaring him a terrorist and
targeting him for something irrevocable. The trouble with any of this is that
you inevitably get entangled with the Times and other newspapers such as The
Post, which also has devoted considerable space and talent to the stories. They
all enabled Assange to reach a wider audience - raise your hand if you actually
visited his Web site - and moreover gave him what amounts to a journalistic
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval: See, this stuff is important.
The challenge is to keep the cure from doing less damage than the disease.
Sure, some world leaders have been discomforted by what has been reported -
Saudi King Abdullah should use Yiddish when he wants to speak candidly - but so
far as we know no bodies have hit the floor with a sickening plop. In fact, it
could be argued that the leaks in any Bob Woodward book are of greater
consequence and importance than those served up by WikiLeaks. And when it comes
to sheer nihilistic journalism, I refer you to the Rolling Stone story that
cost Gen. Stanley McChrystal his command and his career. The article contained
nothing of real value concerning policy or a disagreement with President Obama.
Yet McChrystal, who survived many a brush with the enemy, was brought down by a
clear shot in the back.
Governments, like married couples, are entitled to their secrets - from us,
from the kids and from the neighbors. Total transparency produces total
opaqueness. If everything's open, no one says anything. If you want to know why
there is no document detailing exactly when George W. Bush decided to go to war
in Iraq, it's because of something Dick Cheney once said: "I learned early on
that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble someday, just don't
write any." On Iraq, he and Bush followed that rule.
One of the juvenile joys of being a journalist used to be knowing what others
didn't - the vaunted story behind the story. "You newspapermen know
everything," Claudette Colbert tells Fred MacMurray in "The Gilded Lily." No
more. Now, everything sees the light of day and media organizations like
Gawker, journalism's own little cesspool, pay for such scoops as pictures
allegedly sent by Brett Favre to a young lady of his passing acquaintance. This
is not what Jefferson had in mind when he championed freedom of the press.
The WikiLeaks brouhaha will pass. Diplomats will once again be indiscreet at
cocktail parties and rat out one another in the same way some people marry
repeatedly, each time forever. The only thing worse than indiscretion is
efforts to punish the miscreants by eroding the core constitutional right to
publish all but the most obvious and blatant national security secrets. The
government has to get better at keeping secrets. Muzzle the leakers - but not
the press.
[email protected]
This Story
a.. WikiLeaks and the trouble with transparency
b.. You're either with us, or you're with WikiLeaks
c.. Why the WikiLeaks cables aren't as threatening as advertised
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
