WikiLeaks: Shooting the messenger

One of the best ways to reform social policy whether it is national or international, is for the facts on which it is based to be open and transparent. Policy often comes down from high with very little information for the public to take part in a meaningful debate. Knowledge of all the information that is available is vital for a well-informed public. Attempts to keep information secret only leads to suspicion and distrust of those who are promoting the policy. In our political system almost every day in our legislatures we see the refusal of the government party to provide satisfactory answers to legitimate questions from the opposition parties.


Since 2007 WikiLeaks, a not-for-profit media organization, has been reporting and publishing information for the public to make informed decisions as to what actions they wish to support. What is unique about WikiLeaks is that the organization has developed technologies to enable contributors to send information with impunity to support their news gathering ability. One of the major reasons that prevent whistleblowers from exposing themselves has been the reprisal that they could face from superiors or those who would suppress the information. Often the suppression of information is justified on the basis that it would compromise "national security" another vague term that does not explain how security would be compromised. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights promotes the ideal that all persons should have the right to freedom of opinion and expression including the right to seek, receive and distribute information and ideas through any media regardless of national boarders.

A familiar tactic by those in authority is to vilify those with opposing views rather than a frank discussion of the facts. It seems to be a juvenile tactic that one might witness during an argument between two children not high-level senior officials. What is required for informed debate is an honest discussion of the known facts or recognition that all the facts may not be known.

Another disturbing tactic is the attempt by those who promote changes in policy to engage in rhetoric that does not discuss the facts but rather speaks in pleasant generalities that no one can oppose. It only encourages others opposing the policy to also speak about it in general terms, which does nothing to clarify the debate.

A headline today from the Associated Press reported, "China ordered hacking of Google – sources". The information attributed by WikiLeaks mentioned a cable about the hijacking attacks against Google was classified as secret. In other words the public would never have learned about these discussions unless the cable had been leaked. Of course the media organization is required to try and confirm the information with the source or state that the information is unverified so that the public can form their opinion or perhaps treat the information with skepticism. If people have all the information verified or not, reasonable people will form reasonable conclusions.

Another media report from the Associated Press, in which a leaked cable by a US Ambassador stated that President Karzai was "an extremely weak man". A statement like this can jeopardize relationships. In this case the US official defended the cable by stating: "We are determined not to allow the reckless actions of WikiLeaks to harm the strong and strategic relationships we have built over many years with many members of the government of Afghanistan". Rather than offer an explanation of why he thought that Karzai was a weak man, the spokesperson attacked the news organization for harming the relations with the Afghan government. It may be true that Karzai is a weak man or he may not be weak, unfortunately we may never know because the spokesperson chose to divert attention from the message to vilifying the messenger.

There are two positions that need to be considered here. One is the right of persons to express their opinions freely and the other is to have at their disposal all the information they need to make an informed opinion. Inherent in the latter is access to the information, which can only be supplied by those who are privy to the information. If the information is suppressed or considered secret how can an opinion be expressed and the universal right be maintained? Therefore, the media finds itself in the position of protecting the identity of their sources and in the case of WikiLeaks, have developed elaborate internet technologies that will not only encourage persons to contribute but have virtually assured them protection from detection if they decide to provide information.

What is most disturbing is the attempt by some to shut down national servers using technology (for example the United States and China among others). This has had, to date, very limited success mainly due to the WikiLeaks technology and also the support of friendly organizations who have agreed to host the WikiLeaks website termed "Mirrors". It is assumed that as long as this happens that no nation will be able to completely shut down the WikiLeaks site.

What we need in society are people who are willing to demonstrate integrity by controlling what they say about others in private especially if it is based on rumor or unsubstantiated information. To say one thing in private and the opposite in public is deceitful and leads the public to wrong conclusions. As well, attempts to denigrate the messenger is seen for what it is – an attempt to deflect the truth.