Het wikilek is goed voor de online journalistiek

Deze gastbijdrage is van Jelmer Mommers en is ook op zijn site te lezen.

Voor de toekomst van internationale online journalistiek zal deze publicatie — net als de Afghaanse warlogs en de video van een schietpartij in Irak — van groot belang blijken. Moet je, in de eerste plaats, toch nagaan dat dit alles op een zondagavond gebeurt. Dat is Wikileaks’ manier om te zeggen dat de journalistiek van de toekomst continu is, online is, over landsgrenzen heen gaat, en gebaseerd is op samenwerking.

Wikileaks’ streven naar transparantie kent geen grenzen. De VS is daar als slachtoffer vanzelfsprekend niet over te spreken. Het is te vroeg (en misschien wel onmogelijk) om definitief te beslissen of deze nieuwe publicatie in de praktijk goed zal zijn voor de wereld – of de wereld beter af is met een zwakker Amerika.

Wellicht bewegen de VS en andere landen na de schrik van vandaag verder weg van hun eigen streven naar transparantie, willen ze hun communicatie nog meer controleren. (De VS heeft al maatregelen aangekondigd om geheime informatie beter te beveiligen.) Dat zou slecht zijn voor burgers, die recht hebben op open informatie.

Redactionele verantwoording

Hoe denken de verschillende kranten zelf over deze publicatie? Waarom wegen volgens hen de voordelen van transparantie en een pikant kijkje in de internationale achterkamers van de VS op tegen de nadelen, zoals vermeend gevaar voor Amerikaanse burgers en ‘vrienden van de VS’ in Amerika en daarbuiten?

Hieronder een weergave van deze overwegingen. Van de New York Times:

The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.

Commentaar bij The Guardian:

The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment.

Der Spiegel:

It is now possible to view many political developments around the world through the lens of those who participated in those events. As such, our understanding of those events is deeply enriched. That alone is often enough to place transparency ahead of national regulations regarding confidentiality.

Nog een overweging van de Times:

The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest. As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.

On the other hand, we are less likely to censor candid remarks simply because they might cause a diplomatic controversy or embarrass officials.

Ook interessant: hoe hebben de kranten de originele documenten geredigeerd?

Redactie door The Guardian:

WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of its information. It has played no part in the preparation, editing and reporting of the individual papers. Co-operation with WikiLeaks has been restricted to agreeing the dates on which we could cover specific regions. The news organisations have redacted some of the cables in order to protect a number of named sources and so as not to disclose certain details of current special operations. We have shared our redactions with WikiLeaks.

Redactie door de New York Times:

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all.

Redactie door Der Spiegel:

As before, WikiLeaks has provided the material to media partners to review and analyze them. With a team of more than 50 reporters and researchers, SPIEGEL has viewed, analyzed and vetted the mass of documents. In most cases, the magazine has sought to protect the identities of the Americans’ informants, unless the person who served as the informant was senior enough to be politically relevant. In some cases, the US government expressed security concerns and SPIEGEL accepted a number of such objections. In other cases, however, SPIEGEL felt the public interest in reporting the news was greater than the threat to security. Throughout our research, SPIEGEL reporters and editors weighed the public interest against the justified interest of countries in security and confidentiality.

Reacties uit de VS

Amerikaanse politici, legerleiders en diplomaten schreeuwen natuurlijk moord en brand om de publicatie van de embassy cables. Twee standaardreacties uit het Amerikaanse voorlichtersarsenaal zijn: 1) Wikileaks neemt enorme onverantwoorde risico’s en brengt Amerika’s belangen en mensen in gevaar!!! En 2) De documenten tonen niets nieuws, forget about it.

Reacties uit de VS, via een live-blog van The Guardian:

Robert Gibbs [press-secretary at the] White House: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.” Pentagon condemns “this reckless disclosure of classified information illegally obtained.”

“A statement from Hillary Clinton, who [– the leaked documents show –] ordered a secret intelligence campaign targeting the leadership of the UN, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK:”

We anticipate the release of what are claimed to be several hundred thousand classified State department cables on Sunday night that detail private diplomatic discussions with foreign governments. By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions. Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world. To be clear – such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies. President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.

Meer van Witte Huis voorlichter Robert Gibbs:

These cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world.

What’s next?

Wikileaks heeft opnieuw laten zien dat het ondanks Amerikaanse druk, ondanks het wegvallen van servers, ondanks ernstige persoonlijke problemen rond leider Julian Assange, en ondanks het opstappen van enkele belangrijke mensen uit de top van de organisatie, nog steeds springlevend is en rake klappen kan uitdelen.

De organisatie zou haar slagkracht nu moeten gebruiken om misstanden van andere overheden en van het bedrijfsleven aan de kaak te stellen. Aan de woorden van Wired-journalist Steven Levy — How about some dirt on nonelected, totally corrupt, citizen-oppressing, terrorist -supporting regimes? – zou ik willen toevoegen: How about some dirt on practically unaccountable, polluting, externalizing anything but a profit corporations?

Ondernemingen moeten tenminste aan dezelfde transparantiedrift worden blootgesteld als overheden.