RSN's Editorial Decisions on WikiLeaks

By Reader Supported News | Editorial

30 November 10

eader Supported News has observed and chronicled the WikiLeaks information phenomenon virtually from the day we began publishing. We have done so fully informed of all available facts and with careful consideration at each step.

By its very nature, WikiLeaks' extraordinary information procurement and dissemination process demands of the international journalistic community an abrupt abandonment of status quo. There is reporting before WikiLeaks, and reporting after WikiLeaks. The two are mutually exclusive.

Ultimately the core decisions regarding WikiLeaks' actions are theirs. The subsequent decisions by the publications that report on WikiLeaks' actions are reactive. Our decisions that have led us to participate in the WikiLeaks information community have not been without some reservation. How does a publication, any publication, address the issue of state secrets? What is necessary, and what is excessive? Given the scope, the territory is uncharted. Undoubtedly WikiLeaks' actions create risk: for them, for those who report, and potentially, for those whose identities and actions may be revealed.

If one is to differentiate forest from trees in assessing risk related to reporting on WikiLeaks' releases, the material now presented for public inspection must be viewed against the backdrop of world militarism. If lives are put at risk by WikiLeaks' data-releases - and it is not clear any are - how many lives have been risked, lost in vain to wars of dubious origin? If the ramifications of these releases seem daunting, does the harm to social fabric in all lands caused by capricious warfare seem less so?

The Safe Harbor of State Secrecy

Planning is the construct of War. When the dialog and decisions both direct and ancillary of war and peace take place in the safe harbor of state secrecy, all is wagered on the incorruptibility of a precious few actors with great power. If it is true that "the greater the power the greater the corruption," then it might also be said that "the greater the transparency the lesser the risk."

WikiLeaks' loudest critics have two main refrains: "It puts lives at risk," and, "It puts our interests at risk." It is not clear that WikiLeaks' releases have resulted in any deaths at all, and "our interests" is a term that does more to validate WikiLeaks' actions than repudiate them.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.