Wikileaks: Changing the face of reportage
How Wikileaks is changing news gathering, news reporting, sources and disclosures.
A London court is considering whether Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.
Lawyers for the 39-year-old Australian have told the court that their client would be denied justice if he is extradited and tried for rape in Sweden.
They also fear he could be sent to Guantanamo Bay and face the death penalty if he is then extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of illegally obtaining secret US diplomatic cables.
Julian Assange gained international notoriety last November when his whistleblowing website released hundreds of thousands of sensitive and secret cables to the world's most respected newspapers.
One member of the Norwegian parliament has already nominated Wikileaks for the 2011 Nobel peace prize although the Sydney Peace Foundation has already announced it's honouring Julian Assange with a gold medal.
Yet despite the accolades there's no doubt that whistleblowing has taken a somewhat negative turn.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who had a falling out with Julian Assange, says the bad press is because whistleblowers don't have control over the secrets they want to spill.
So he's announced Open Leaks, a new online platform that will allow sources to choose who they want to submit documents to anonymously.
Its aim he says is to make whistleblowing safer and more widespread through transparency and decentralisation.
So are we in the midst of a revolution in journalism? And what are the implications for journalists in the wake of Wikileaks and now Open Leaks?
Transcript
Ramona Koval: A London court is considering whether Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations, allegations he denies.
Lawyers for the 39-year-old Australian have told the court that their client would be denied justice if he is extradited and tried for rape in Sweden. They also fear he could be sent to Guantanamo Bay and face the death penalty if he is then extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of illegally obtaining secret US diplomatic cables.
Julian Assange gained international notoriety last November when his whistle-blowing website released hundreds of thousands of sensitive and secret cables to the world's most respected newspapers.
On Friday in a pre-recorded video message of a public forum in Melbourne, Julian Assange described Wikileaks as a generational challenge. Here's an excerpt of that address:
Julian Assange: For the internet generation this is our challenge and this is our time. We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry has a right to scrutinise the state. The state has asserted its authority by surveilling, monitoring and regimenting all of us, all the while hiding behind cloaks of security and opaqueness. Surely it was only a matter of time before citizens pushed back and we asserted our rights. With your help and support we will make our way through this storm.
We have been deeply moved by the concern that Australians have shown for us. There has been outrageous and illegal calls to have me and my staff killed, clear cases of incitement to violence, yet the Australian government has condoned this behaviour by its diplomatic silence. Julia Gillard should be taking active steps to bring me home and to protect our people. She should be contacting the US embassy and demanding that it back off.
Ramona Koval: Julian Assange in a pre-recorded message at a Liberty Victoria forum in Melbourne last Friday.
One member of the Norwegian Parliament has already nominated Wikileaks for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, although the Sydney Peace Foundation has already announced it's honouring Julian Assange with a gold medal. Yet despite the accolades there's no doubt that whistle-blowing has taken a somewhat negative turn.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who had a falling out with Julian Assange, says the bad press is because whistleblowers don't have control over the secrets they want to spill. So he's announced Open Leaks, a new online platform that will allow sources to choose who they want to submit documents to anonymously. Its aim, he says, is to make whistle-blowing safer and more widespread through transparency and decentralisation.
So are we in the midst of a revolution in journalism? And what are the implications for journalists in the wake of Wikileaks and now Open Leaks?
Australian author, journalist and filmmaker, John Pilger is a vocal supporter of Wikileaks and of Julian Assange. You might remember last year he was one of several high profile people who offered a surety to secure bail for him.
John Pilger is in our Sydney studio and joins me now. Welcome to The Book Show John.
John Pilger: Good morning Ramona.
Ramona Koval: This extradition hearing in London is about allegations of sexual assault, but Assange also faces possible indictment for treason by a US grand jury. There are those in the US administration who believe that he should be charged with espionage, that he is not in fact a journalist, that the dissemination of raw classified data isn't reporting and he is more of a source than a journalist and therefore in the US he wouldn't be protected under the Constitution's First Amendment. That seems to be the tactic. So is Julian Assange in your view a journalist or a source?
John Pilger: He is a journalist, he is both a journalist and a source, he is as much a journalist as I am, and I've been a source as well, so he's as much a source as I am. What he isn't is an American, so how can he be a traitor? And how can he be charged with espionage? There is a grotesque absurdity about what's going on in the United States because the only thing that they've been able to dig up is a First World War piece of legislation called the Espionage Act which was used against conscientious objectors I think, dissenters during the First World War, and in fact only ever secured one or two convictions long ago.
They've since been trying to invent a law, a sort of conspiracy law to charge Julian Assange with if they can get their hands on him. In fact he's done absolutely nothing in terms of Wikileaks that has contravened any law in the United States. I asked the assistant secretary of defence, Bryan Whitman, in the Pentagon last year did he believe in whistle-blowing, and he said, 'Absolutely, we have a constitutional amendment that protects whistleblowers.' Well, then why are you pursuing Julian Assange? Ah, that's different. What he was saying was in fact he didn't like the sound that the whistle had made, that's all. It's shooting the messenger all over again and as journalists who do our jobs we recognise that, or we should anyway.
Ramona Koval: Christopher Hitchens, in an article for Slate, says that Julian Assange is neither a journalist nor a source, instead he has described him as 'an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda'. And there is a view held by many in the US administration saying he's put lives and US security at risk. Do you think that that holds water?
John Pilger: We can always dig up quotations from mutants like Hitchens and others to shout abuse at people, that's very easy. He is none of those things. In fact what Wikileaks has done is what journalists should have done a long time ago, that's our job. Wikileaks represents disclosure, it represents calling to account power in democratic societies. Thomas Jefferson said that free flow of information was the currency of democracy. That should be written on the foreheads of every journalist. Wikileaks has done a job of both journalism and whistle-blowing, and again it is the message they don't like, so shoot the messenger.
Ramona Koval: The new way of releasing information does raise questions about the definition of what a news organisation is now in what is now a complex internet world. You were a war correspondent in Vietnam, a foreign correspondent, you've gathered news in a traditional way. How is Wikileaks changing reportage?
John Pilger: I think it's using the technology. Ramona, the great scoops, if you like, have very seldom come from journalists themselves, they've almost always come from within systems, they've been provided by whistleblowers. It's an honourable tradition that goes right back to Thomas Paine and there have been many heroic examples of whistleblowers since, combining with journalists, or both. And what we have now is the technology. You can provide Wikileaks with information without your source being tracked, and I've had a close look at this, how various information goes through different encrypting, different computers and so on, it is almost impossible to trace the source. So what has changed is that the source is protected.
We have in the United States this terrible situation of Private Bradley Manning who is alleged to have been the source for some of the Wikileaks disclosures there, 'alleged' I say. And it's not that he was found out, if he is that person, because of the technology, he happened to mention apparently to somebody else that he was the source. But that could change. The technology has provided us with this way of going around the gatekeepers, of disclosing, giving the people the information to which they have a right.
When you think of what Wikileaks has told us over the last year...in Australia alone, about how our politics have worked and who goes and sees the American embassy and whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs is suggesting the United States might like to attack China and all those things that are terribly important for us to know about if we are to make reasoned decisions within a democracy. I found that, as a journalist who has toiled away to try and find out what the powerful are up to most of my life, I found it thrilling.
Ramona Koval: Woodward and Bernstein of course broke the Watergate story, but clearly the days of meeting your secret source in a car park are well and truly over. We've seen this offshoot of Wikileaks with the soon-to-be launched Open Leaks. There are also reports that the New York Times itself is considering developing a system which will let anonymous leakers submit confidential files directly to the newspaper. So it looks like we are likely to see more big stories break, aren't we, if sources can more readily send documentation direct to news organisations?
John Pilger: About time. Because I don't think news organisations have really been in the business of breaking big stories. I think in many respects they've been in the business of suppressing big stories. You mentioned the New York Times, its editor Mr Keller said the other day in New York in a discussion that they weren't going to really release any more of the Wikileaks cables to which they had access.
Ramona Koval: Why, what was the reason?
John Pilger: Well, because they feel basically that's enough, and the ones that this great paragon of free journalism already had, they immediately went to the White House with and said, 'Please, which ones can we release?' We live with so many myths in journalism, one of the myths is that we have an entirely free press, free from pressures and is only interested in informing the public of everything that's going on. That's simply not true. And what has upset many journalists is that Wikileaks has exposed that. It has really opened up to show that the disclosures that are so important to those of us in a democracy to know about really ought to have come from those news organisations that you're referring to. It's given us journalists, I think, a very long pause for thought.
Ramona Koval: The New York Times and the London Guardian, which are two of the newspapers which Julian Assange chose to send his cables two, also Der Spiegel and El Pais... both say that they've had difficulties working with Julian Assange, there has been remarkable responses...I think the New York Times called him a source actually. He in turn has criticised both newspapers for their coverage of his personal life. It is fascinating to look at the portrayal of his character and where that sits in his story. And I saw this morning this long interview that you have on your website with Julian Assange who is very clear-headed and very logical and doesn't seem to be the kind of person who is being portrayed by these newspapers. Where does character sit in this story?
John Pilger: If you're embarrassed by what somebody does, then what do you do? You play the man, used to be the expression, and it really has been the most demeaning spectacle to watch these two newspapers, especially the New York Times, abuse and attack Assange personally and try to present him as other than the person he is, the source he is, the journalist he is, and the partner he has been. It's been a rather...for me watching this and reading this sort of rather childish abuse of Julian Assange, bearing no likeness, I must say, to the person that I know...
Ramona Koval: And who is the person you know?
John Pilger: Well, he's a very analytical person. I think what was most interesting to me was that when he started Wikileaks in 2006...he's rather idealistic. It was bringing a moral dimension to it. 'Justice is the goal, transparency is the method' was the slogan of Wikileaks. And I think in that clip you used in the beginning he said that rather well. He sounded to me like all those old-fashioned journalists I admire and looked up to long ago, that you scratch around trying to find these days as they disappear into the corporate world of media. I think that kind of idealism, if you like (and it sounds utopian to call it idealism), that kind of moral sense that journalism is about humanity and about justice and about calling power to account has become exotic.
We've become so used to this corporatising media, a media that has fixed boundaries that is so influenced by commercial considerations, that has been so dumbed down, that the idea that we should be doing a basic job of journalism and finding out what the hell those who try to run our lives are up to...that's gone out the window, and that's what Wikileaks has done, and he's upset people. Even those rather pompous people who run the New York Times, not a very good newspaper at the best of times, but now he's embarrassed them by really providing them with the raw material which they then take to authority to get the okay to publish.
Ramona Koval: So how is what Wikileaks is doing any different to what Daniel Ellsberg did in 1971 when he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times which detailed America's political and military involvement in Vietnam? I mean, besides the fact that Wikileaks has a reach that the New York Times could only dream of in 1971, what is the difference? You could remember I guess how Daniel Ellsberg was demonised at the time too.
John Pilger: Well, I don't think there is a difference, and that's why Daniel Ellsberg is so supportive of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. The difference is in the means. Ellsberg had to spend night after night with his kids photocopying this stuff, piles and piles of it, to get it out. Now you simply...you need a computer and a mouse and that's it. Well, it's not it of course because what you need is the will to want to get this information out to the wider public, you need this courage to be able to do it. No, there isn't any difference between them in principle. I've known a number of whistle-blowers over the years, and I've also had experience when I've come up with something that is rare and unusual and causes a great deal of embarrassment, and I've noted on a number of occasions the sort of attacks that happen before the congratulations. The attacks come first.
Ramona Koval: So what has Wikileaks changed in terms of the war in Afghanistan, because critics of the Pentagon Papers and the Daniel Ellsberg event say that the central failure of that leak and the reporting of it was that it didn't change very much and the war in Vietnam continued for another four years.
John Pilger: Well, I think it contributed certainly, that's true, and I don't think anyone who comes up with information can say that 'hallelujah, here is the truth, here's the disclosure, this will now end'. It doesn't work like that. Information is on one side and enormous power is on the other and ruthless power. Those that conduct wars, those who invade countries and commit troops to rapacious adventures in other people's countries are not going to be rolled over by information just like that. But it's a drip effect. If not a drip, I think Wikileaks has turned the tap on, and it's what then power will not do.
I'm convinced that because of rising public awareness (and this is before Wikileaks) about the lies told that led up to the invasion of Iraq, the lies told about Afghanistan, I'm convinced that the reason there hasn't been an attack on Iran is because of that. I can't prove it, but that's my sense, that that understanding, that awareness, that information has made great power draw back. You know, the Pentagon has spent, according to the AP I read recently, over $4 billion dollars basically on propaganda. Why do they do that, why do governments invest so much in spinning, so many resources in trying to set us off down a particular path, tell lies to us in effect? Because they fear us.
Ramona Koval: John Pilger, we're going to have to stop now, but thank you so much for speaking to us today on The Book Show.
John Pilger: You're welcome.
Ramona Koval: Australian author, journalist and filmmaker John Pilger. And if you'd like to have your say about Julian Assange and Wikileaks you can, just go to our website, click on the story and post your comment.
Guests
- John Pilger
- Australian author, journalist and filmmaker. John Pilger is a vocal supporter of Wikileaks and of Julian Assange. He was one of several high profile people who offered a surety to secure bail for Julian Assange in 2010.
Credits
- Presenter
- Ramona Koval
- Producer
- Linda LoPresti
Comments (15)
Add your comment
D Cheng :
08 Feb 2011 10:50:24am
John Pilger was asked what's the difference between Daniel Ehlsberg and Julian Assange's leaks. The response was no difference. I don't agree. Having watched recently 'The most Dangerous Man in America' which was an excellent documentary on Ehlsberg and why he did it, Ehlslberg did it because he felt a morally wrong with influencing the US government into getting more involved with Vietnam. He was the primary Strategic Analyst providing recommendations to the President and Secretary of State regarding Vietnam. High ranking govt and presidents started lying about the war to continue. He had to disclose this to the public due to the war deaths involved. Julian Assange leaks show no purpose (ex swiss banker details - who cares), govt dialogue (nothing surprising in the dialogue between govt) plus he has jeopardised people who have risked their lives in providing information to governments. Assange leaks display no moral outcome as in Ehlsberg who basically broke down personally, and was prepared to go to prison as an outcome. Of course, there is a difference between the two whistleblowers. One is moral and the other idealistic. Until Assange shows this, I have no support for the man who is trying to flee from prison.
Alert moderator
Richard Ure :
08 Feb 2011 1:44:28pm
"Flee from prison"? Or defend himself against apparently dubious allegations? Isn't he (or everyone) entitle to that?
Some bias is present.
Alert moderator
l_t_r :
08 Feb 2011 9:24:34pm
"Until Assange shows this, I have no support for the man who is trying to flee from prison."
Please D Cheng - ANYONE who is in the position of defending themselves from an allegation ( in assanges case not yet even a charge ) could be construed as 'fleeing' prison.
Is it not crucial and fundamental that such defences be allowed , encouraged AND supported ?
Did not Magna Carta ( and other judicial reforms ) set down the parameters of due process ?
On reflection isn't there is AT LEAST 'this' to support ?
Thankyou
l_t_r
Alert moderator
Tom Hull :
08 Feb 2011 10:51:53am
Thankyou for focusing on this immensly important issue. Truly Wikileaks is an exemplar of the power that new technology can lend to age old battles for liberty and democracy. There are so many moments in our modern lives where the usage of technlogy can take away our freedoms (such as notable social networking websites using people's private information for financial gain, or the potential for government agencies to track, censorship and surveill our actions). Wikileaks and other inspirational applications of modern technology which are founded on operate on altruistic principles rather than the profit motive, are helping us to realise that we do not have to sit back and accept the actions of corrupt governments and corporations. There could be no better example of this than the tide of revolutionary sentiment in north Africa. In this day and age we can empower ourselves, at the expense of tyrants and career politicians who hoard and maintain power through opaque and secretive denial of information. Lets all support those who would dissolve that secrecy in the public interest, and take charge of our world before it is too late.
Alert moderator
Nadejda Kuznetzova Letat :
08 Feb 2011 11:08:12am
I am a great admirer of John Pilger and also of Julian Assange. Both courageous people.
Now that all is being revealed (& I hope continues!), I wonder if there is another "truth" behind the establishment of "Israel" in 1947 and "9/11" demolision of Twin Towers! Lots of other things I'd like to know but these are my top concerns.
Alert moderator
Bob :
08 Feb 2011 11:21:24am
Much good to Julian Assange and much good to John Pilger! The world is richer, wiser and more democratic thanks to their courage and dedication to telling us the truth.
Alert moderator
brucek :
08 Feb 2011 12:08:50pm
Thanks for having John Pilger on the Book Show - it's hard for his honest voice to get heard since he calls a spade a spade. It's refreshing to here his calm clarity and discussion of information v power. Keep up the good, varied, work team!
Alert moderator
Margaret Millar :
08 Feb 2011 1:17:08pm
I was pleased to hear John Pilger again. He has been too long absent from the ABC. He is a man whose life has been given to the exposure of corruption and injustice and I greatly respect his point of view.I think Julian Assange has been most unfairly treated. I am amazed at the US Government's reaction to Wikileaks. The death penalty proposed for revealing the truth? Whatever happened to the Land of the Free? Likewise most Western Governments are anxious to see Assange put away and his journalistic business shut down.In this case the Australian Government, to its disgrace, has been no champion of justice to its citizen Assange. It is the ordinary people of the world who champion Wikileaks and Assange's efforts to reveal the truth about world politics. It will not disappear.
Alert moderator
l_t_r :
08 Feb 2011 9:48:27pm
In the early 90's I met J.P on a plane to Pnohm Penh. Not someone I had much knowledge of at the time, he and I discussed some wide ranging issues on that flight, including the future of Cambodia. I became enarmoured of his insight and desire to get to the heart of things, and his clear focus on justice.
Years later , somewhat marginalised , J.P. still seeks truth and remains, sadly a pariah
Julian Assange, in the same vein - carries on the idealism of J.P. and indeed the two keep good company.
We ALL would do well to listen to these men, seek the reason in their words and deeds. Weigh it ! take nothing blindly and then MOST IMPORTANTLY act.
With J.P in mind, I looked a little deeper into Cambodian politics and in a small way have been engaged in that countries slow climb from the abyss of Pol Pot. Its encumbent on ALL of us to respond to the madness of the world.
Assange published ( as an example ) 'Collateral Murder' a short video from the gun camera of a US attack helicopter coldly cutting down innocents in Iraq. Whatever you think of Assange / wikileaks .. it does not change the 'facts' of that video. If you see it and dont feel a sense of despair, you cannot be human - and if you see it and DONT act, you probably dont deserve to BE human.
THESE are the outrages we need to respond to!
Forget the tabloid prying into Assanges character. Lets move past the titallation to truly react to these weightier matters. Get behind the calls to expose 'crime' , support Assange if thats your wont, support press freedom, ask questions of government, of the press, of all authority, vote ( if you can ).
Just ACT !
Thanks book show .. great piece.
l_t_r
Alert moderator
Moriarty :
09 Feb 2011 9:28:52am
I stand with D Cheng. Let us get straight on two points. Assuange is neither a journalist nor a whistleblower. Neither is the junior official now being indicted in the US for accessing and supplying those documents to Wikileaks, a whistleblower. The hundreds of thousands of documents were illegally obtained and released to Wikileaks in an indiscriminate manner simply for the selfish and personal purpose of hurting someone, anyone and the US government as misguided personal vengeance. A journalist would have known the difference. The act of obtaining and releasing these documents - with clearly neither understanding of the extent of the contents nor whom their release could affect, is no different that the suicide bomber who blows up innocent people and bystanders in the hope they will take out their opponent. (Note I am describing the act, not the person) It is an unexplored and unexplored irony that Assuange seeks to protect his personal and private life from the gaze of the world in direct contradiction of his quest to make himself the champion of those who 'leave no stone unturned'. That Pilger would support Assuange tells me more about Pilger than it does about Assuange.
Alert moderator
catliopurr :
09 Feb 2011 10:29:23pm
Moriarty...uh, really? 'No different than the suicide bomber who blows up innocent people'?! There are huge differences, and they are obvious to anyone that hasnt indulged the left side of their brain to the exclusion of their eyes, ears, nose and emotional and logic centers (of their brain.) You are a prime example of the deterioration of the intellectual perspective of the average adult (in the US) to form constructive argument, logically construed, thus you render discussion and discourse impossible. You're your own police, judge and jury, and I assume executioner, from the vitriol and tone of your writing. Honestly, folks like you make folks like me wonder, who are these people who use language so artfully to craft arguments so empty and intend to incite blind emotion? Whats your agenda? Because you obviously have one...And that you cant see the difference in releasing material that may (or may not, thats whats worth discussing) keep democracy safer than it is without these cyclical checks and balances needed for the rich and powerful through shaming them into decent, civilized behavior, from that of radicals ready to kill themselves with the promise of virgins in heaven as reward for creating death and destruction, tells us more about you than it does about anything else discussed...
Alert moderator
Moriarty :
13 Feb 2011 8:27:17am
catliopurr - try sticking to the subject. Breathing through your nose helps.
Alert moderator
catliopurr :
21 Feb 2011 10:57:01pm
Oh yes? And the subject was...my bodily functions?
That's surely 'sticking to the subject' for someone who cant construe a reasoned retort or reflect even remotely on themselves or the meta issues here. You're just so...unoriginal.
Alert moderator
Jen Fox :
09 Feb 2011 12:23:36pm
Thanks for this discussion Ramona - there has not been enough differentiated comment around decoupling 'character' from the issue at hand about information access and democracy and the fact that Julian Assuange is not a terrorist, even though I find disturbing any information release that may endanger another person.
Alert moderator
lavinia moore :
16 Feb 2011 4:32:38pm
Re John Pilger and wikileaks.
(8/2/2011)
John has been a person who always acts the true journalist: he speaks truth to power.
He also knows about the lies and deceptions of the powerful, and how successive American leaders have deceived not only the rest of the world but their own people. And I would add that they are not the only ones who do so.
People like Julian Assange are doing what unfortuunately needs to be done in these times of spin and secrecy. That is, uncover the truth about those who dont tell us the truth about what they are doing.
Without the truth, democracy is dead.
It is as simple as that.
Even Hillary Clinton knows that, although she usually reserves her demand for openness and free access to digital media and networking forums for those who oppose her "enemies", while at the same time accusing Wikileaks of undermining international diplomacy etc etc.
Daniel Ellsberg knows that Assange has risen because someone was needed to fulfil the role he himself filled during Nixon's time.
Pilger knows that also.
Its a pity our own government still has not got that one right.
Good for John Pilger. And thanks for including him on your show.
Alert moderator