""The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.""
These words were not spoken by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a New York Times reporter or an American Civil Liberties Union representative. They were spoken by President Obama, who is now condemning WikiLeaks for embarrassing public officials, in a memo shortly after he took office.
This is hypocrisy at its most dangerous. By denigrating the efforts of an organization working to out government failures, the Obama administration is sending the message that government should only be transparent when it is convenient.Â
On Sunday, the organization WikiLeaks released 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables to select media outlets around the world. Since Sunday, however, many American pundits have expressed outrage at the publication of the cables—defending the right for diplomats to say one thing in public and another in private. We find this claim self-defacing: If this isn't where journalism fits in, where does it?
The content of the leaks are far from revolutionary. The conversations relayed in the cables are not wicked or conspiratorial. Some will wonder, ""Well, then why bother publishing them?"" The answer may seem juvenile, but it is important: Because public officials need to be embarrassed from time to time. Without such checks, it is easy to slip into contentment and laziness.
Others argue that Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks employees serve no higher purpose by indiscriminately publishing these diplomatic cables; that the leaks will put international peacemaking in peril by discouraging diplomats from trusting the security of their communications with the U.S.
What many of these critics forget, however, is that the U.S. remains the powerhouse of international diplomacy. Despite how ""imperiled"" they may feel, foreign leaders will have no choice but to continue bargaining with American diplomats.
That is not to say all of the leaked information is appropriate. Among the quarter million documents published were technical details of an Army device designed to prevent roadside bombs from detonating, and the Social Security numbers of U.S. soldiers. Indeed, there are parallels between the misconduct of diplomats and Assange himself.
Yes, some of the cables were classified, but many were not, and even those that were available to around three million government agents with clearance to view them. When 1 percent of the American population has access to information, it is difficult to argue that said information will remain secure.
The ease with which the ""secret"" documents were obtained and relayed also shows the U.S. government its system of classification is flawed beyond doubt. Around three million diplomatic, military and other government workers had access to these cables, yet it is WikiLeaks' fault for taking advantage of the government's lax security. A similar situation would be leaving a jewelry store unlocked overnight, then being outraged to find it robbed the next morning. The media and U.S. government should not try to find blame in WikiLeaks, but turn their scrutiny inward.
Even more pundits have taken it upon themselves to advocate for the continued ignorance of the American people. These critics are not afraid of WikiLeaks because of its supposed effects on international diplomacy. Nor are they afraid that WikiLeaks is devaluing the moral obligation of the media. These critics hate WikiLeaks because they are terrified of losing control over the messages their audience receive.
Emma Roller is a senior majoring in journalism and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com
