Trích
The Sydney Morning Herald
WikiLeaks gives old media a shot in the arm
Hamish Ford
December 16, 2010 - 12:37PM
(Link video :
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/wikileaks-gives-old-media-a-shot-in-the-arm-20101216-18yt7.html )
Julian Assange's 'manor arrest'
WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange could be released on bail to take up residence in a 10 bedroom manor in the UK.
"WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in."
Is this Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, or perhaps Naomi Klein? In fact, the quote is from an open letter signed by radicals such as Colonel Larry Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Colin Powell, George Bush's secretary of state), former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley, and former British Intelligence analyst Katharine Gun. Powerful forces are indeed arrayed against Julian Assange, but support is also coming from increasingly diverse quarters – and growing.
Another signatory to the letter is Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked documents that became known as the Pentagon Papers. This famous act of whistle-blowing revealed the shocking truth of the USA's activities in – and invasion of – Vietnam. After calling over many years for somebody to perform an equivalent act today so that the world can know the truth behind the invading and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ellsberg is now publically praising Assange and those sources (such as US Army Private Bradley Manning, who is facing 50 years' jail) who may have provided WikiLeaks with the material.
In 1971 the US Government tried to gag the Pentagon Papers' publication in The New York Times, charging the newspaper and Ellsberg – facing over 100 years in prison – under the draconian Espionage Act first created by president Woodrow Wilson in 1917 to criminalise speaking out against war. The Supreme Court found in favour of Ellsberg in 1971, saying the right to free speech overrode the Act, yet there are signs Attorney General Eric Holder is seeking to re-invoke it against Assange despite the fact that the WikiLeak's founder is not a US citizen.
While the Pentagon Papers were morally and politically revelatory, the impact of WikiLeaks heralds a potentially more revolutionary shift in the relationship between governments, media and democracy.
On the one hand, WikiLeaks has roundly shown the media up, particularly in the US but also here, for not holding governments much more rigorously to account since the attacks of September 11, 2001. But while an often unseemly combination of jealousy, humiliation, ideological hatred, and nationalism drives the more extreme media as well as political responses to Assange, the success of this remarkable, seemingly endless story comes down to a very interesting alliance of convenience.
When WikiLeaks started four years ago its policy was simply to receive documents, check them for both authenticity and potential harm (the latter fact, and the US State Department's refusal of Assange's offer to redact select cables for release, ignored by critics), then simply make the results available online. When the material didn't have the impact WikiLeaks thought it should, the organisation moved to the much more explosive model whereby select documents would be co-published by handpicked newspapers, who importantly "decide what the story is", says Assange – one often changing by the hour.
So what are the future media implications of this remarkable story? If used properly, the WikiLeaks phenomenon could prove to be a huge shot in the arm both for journalism and the mass media. At least the global newspapers partnering in the release of the cables must be starting to see that a very real way to survive and prosper in the new century is to work with the new, much more effective – and incendiary – brand of information retrieval and release, rather than fight it. And finally some big local media organisations are lining up behind WikiLeaks, their bosses co-signing a letter criticising as a serious assault on democracy the Australian and US governments' threat to outlaw the organisation. While this support is certainly welcome, the letter also ignores the media as well as political impact of WikiLeaks, wilfully claiming it is "doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret". The old guard won't share their long-held patch and privilege so easily. In particular, any definitive move towards a genuinely collaborative long-term relationship with WikiLeaks-type online sources would likely require a proper divorcement between the mass media and its familiar role of largely voicing and reinforcing elite state opinion and official "truth".
While this is potentially a pivotal moment, established power is always quick to appropriate new threats. While plentiful US government figures, and now President Barack Obama, paint Assange as a truly dangerous man – which in a sense he is – as they desperately seek ways to lay charges, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to use the leaks in claiming a recently released cable proves it isn't just the US and Israel but also "the Arab world" who view Iran as a threat. In selling the leaked comments by (pro-US) dictators as representing "Arab opinion", Clinton essentially disavows democratic expression, and a simple act of journalistic inquiry reveals the too-little mentioned "inconvenient truth" that public opinion is – not unusually – a very different story to the official, mainstream media-enabled one. (In June-July a major Brookings Institution poll of the Arab world showed just 10 per cent of citizens most worried about Iran, with 5 per cent even considering its acquiring nuclear weapons beneficial to the region, while 80 per cent instead saw Israel as the greatest threat, and 77 per cent the US itself.)
WikiLeaks has "assisted democracy in revealing the real views of our governments", to quote another letter supporting Assange. This is why rather than a threat, the new upstart global media player ought to be seen as a potentially revitalising boon for serious journalism, which can use this unprecedented tool to do what it always should: report on the activities and proclamations of powerful states in such a way as to further, rather than hinder, both the free flow of information and genuinely democratic expression.
The ongoing WikiLeaks drama points to a potentially transformational arrangement between old and new media forms much better equipped to enable just that.
Hamish Ford is a lecturer in Film, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Newcastle.
___________
Australian Media's Finest Defend Wikileaks
13 December 2010
Written by Walkleys
Australia’s most senior media professionals have written to Prime Minister Julia Gillard today to express their support for WikiLeaks...
The letter was initiated by the Walkley Foundation and signed by the ten members of the Walkley Advisory Board as well as editors of major Australian newspapers and news websites and the news directors of the country’s three commercial TV networks and two public broadcasters.
“In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.
It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.”
The full letter sent to Prime Minister Julia Gillard can be viewed here and is also available below:
Dear Prime Minister,
STATEMENT FROM AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER EDITORS, TELEVISION AND RADIO DIRECTORS AND ONLINE MEDIA EDITORS
The leaking of 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables is the most astonishing leak of official information in recent history, and its full implications are yet to emerge. But some things are clear. In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.
In this case, WikiLeaks, founded by Australian Julian Assange, worked with five major newspapers around the world, which published and analysed the embassy cables. Diplomatic correspondence relating to Australia has begun to be published here.
The volume of the leaks is unprecedented, yet the leaking and publication of diplomatic correspondence is not new. We, as editors and news directors of major media organisations, believe the reaction of the US and Australian governments to date has been deeply troubling. We will strongly resist any attempts to make the publication of these or similar documents illegal. Any such action would impact not only on WikiLeaks, but every media organisation in the world that aims to inform the public about decisions made on their behalf. WikiLeaks, just four years old, is part of the media and deserves our support.
Already, the chairman of the US Senate homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, is suggesting The New York Times should face investigation for publishing some of the documents. The newspaper told its readers that it had ‘‘taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security.’’ Such an approach is responsible — we do not support the publication of material that threatens national security or anything which would put individual lives in danger. Those judgements are never easy, but there has been no evidence to date that the WikiLeaks material has done either.
There is no evidence, either, that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have broken any Australian law. The Australian government is investigating whether Mr Assange has committed an offence, and the Prime Minister has condemned WikiLeaks’ actions as ‘‘illegal’’. So far, it has been able to point to no Australian law that has been breached.
To prosecute a media organisation for publishing a leak would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press. In Australia, it would seriously curtail Australian media organisations reporting on subjects the government decides are against its interests.
WikiLeaks has no doubt made errors. But many of its revelations have been significant. It has given citizens an insight into US thinking about some of the most complex foreign policy issues of our age, including North Korea, Iran and China.
It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.
Yours faithfully
Clinton Maynard, news director, 2UE
David Penberthy, editor-in-chief, news.com.au
Eric Beecher, chairman, Crikey, Smart Company, Business Spectator, The Eureka Report
Gay Alcorn, editor, The Sunday Age
Garry Bailey, editor, The Mercury (Hobart)
Garry Linnell, editor, The Daily Telegraph
Ian Ferguson, director of news and programs, Sky News Australia/New Zealand
Jim Carroll, network director of news and public affairs, Ten Network
Julian Ricci, editor, Northern Territory News
Kate Torney, director of news, ABC
Mark Calvert, director of news and current affairs, Nine Network
Melvin Mansell, editor, The Advertiser (Adelaide)
Megan Lloyd, editor, Sunday Mail (Adelaide)
Michael Crutcher, editor, The Courier Mail,
Mike van Niekerk, editor in chief, Fairfax online
Paul Cutler, news director, SBS
Paul Ramadge, editor-in-chief, The Age
Peter Fray, editor-in-chief, The Sydney Morning Herald
Peter Meakin, director of news and public affairs, Seven Network
Rick Feneley, editor, The Sun-Herald
Rob Curtain, news director, 3AW
Rod Quinn, editor, The Canberra Times
Sam Weir, editor, The Sunday Times
Scott Thompson, The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
Simon Pristel, editor, Herald Sun
Tory Maguire, editor, The Punch
Walkley Advisory Board
Gay Alcorn
Mike Carlton
Helen Dalley
John Donegan
Peter Meakin
Laurie Oakes
Jeni O'Dowd
Alan Kennedy
Malcolm Schmidtke
Fenella Souter
You can also read statements made earlier this month by the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) concerning WikiLeaks here.
Hết trích
WikiLeaks gives old media a shot in the arm
Hamish Ford
December 16, 2010 - 12:37PM
(Link video :
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/wikileaks-gives-old-media-a-shot-in-the-arm-20101216-18yt7.html )
Julian Assange's 'manor arrest'
WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange could be released on bail to take up residence in a 10 bedroom manor in the UK.
"WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in."
Is this Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, or perhaps Naomi Klein? In fact, the quote is from an open letter signed by radicals such as Colonel Larry Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Colin Powell, George Bush's secretary of state), former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley, and former British Intelligence analyst Katharine Gun. Powerful forces are indeed arrayed against Julian Assange, but support is also coming from increasingly diverse quarters – and growing.
Another signatory to the letter is Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked documents that became known as the Pentagon Papers. This famous act of whistle-blowing revealed the shocking truth of the USA's activities in – and invasion of – Vietnam. After calling over many years for somebody to perform an equivalent act today so that the world can know the truth behind the invading and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ellsberg is now publically praising Assange and those sources (such as US Army Private Bradley Manning, who is facing 50 years' jail) who may have provided WikiLeaks with the material.
In 1971 the US Government tried to gag the Pentagon Papers' publication in The New York Times, charging the newspaper and Ellsberg – facing over 100 years in prison – under the draconian Espionage Act first created by president Woodrow Wilson in 1917 to criminalise speaking out against war. The Supreme Court found in favour of Ellsberg in 1971, saying the right to free speech overrode the Act, yet there are signs Attorney General Eric Holder is seeking to re-invoke it against Assange despite the fact that the WikiLeak's founder is not a US citizen.
While the Pentagon Papers were morally and politically revelatory, the impact of WikiLeaks heralds a potentially more revolutionary shift in the relationship between governments, media and democracy.
On the one hand, WikiLeaks has roundly shown the media up, particularly in the US but also here, for not holding governments much more rigorously to account since the attacks of September 11, 2001. But while an often unseemly combination of jealousy, humiliation, ideological hatred, and nationalism drives the more extreme media as well as political responses to Assange, the success of this remarkable, seemingly endless story comes down to a very interesting alliance of convenience.
When WikiLeaks started four years ago its policy was simply to receive documents, check them for both authenticity and potential harm (the latter fact, and the US State Department's refusal of Assange's offer to redact select cables for release, ignored by critics), then simply make the results available online. When the material didn't have the impact WikiLeaks thought it should, the organisation moved to the much more explosive model whereby select documents would be co-published by handpicked newspapers, who importantly "decide what the story is", says Assange – one often changing by the hour.
So what are the future media implications of this remarkable story? If used properly, the WikiLeaks phenomenon could prove to be a huge shot in the arm both for journalism and the mass media. At least the global newspapers partnering in the release of the cables must be starting to see that a very real way to survive and prosper in the new century is to work with the new, much more effective – and incendiary – brand of information retrieval and release, rather than fight it. And finally some big local media organisations are lining up behind WikiLeaks, their bosses co-signing a letter criticising as a serious assault on democracy the Australian and US governments' threat to outlaw the organisation. While this support is certainly welcome, the letter also ignores the media as well as political impact of WikiLeaks, wilfully claiming it is "doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret". The old guard won't share their long-held patch and privilege so easily. In particular, any definitive move towards a genuinely collaborative long-term relationship with WikiLeaks-type online sources would likely require a proper divorcement between the mass media and its familiar role of largely voicing and reinforcing elite state opinion and official "truth".
While this is potentially a pivotal moment, established power is always quick to appropriate new threats. While plentiful US government figures, and now President Barack Obama, paint Assange as a truly dangerous man – which in a sense he is – as they desperately seek ways to lay charges, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to use the leaks in claiming a recently released cable proves it isn't just the US and Israel but also "the Arab world" who view Iran as a threat. In selling the leaked comments by (pro-US) dictators as representing "Arab opinion", Clinton essentially disavows democratic expression, and a simple act of journalistic inquiry reveals the too-little mentioned "inconvenient truth" that public opinion is – not unusually – a very different story to the official, mainstream media-enabled one. (In June-July a major Brookings Institution poll of the Arab world showed just 10 per cent of citizens most worried about Iran, with 5 per cent even considering its acquiring nuclear weapons beneficial to the region, while 80 per cent instead saw Israel as the greatest threat, and 77 per cent the US itself.)
WikiLeaks has "assisted democracy in revealing the real views of our governments", to quote another letter supporting Assange. This is why rather than a threat, the new upstart global media player ought to be seen as a potentially revitalising boon for serious journalism, which can use this unprecedented tool to do what it always should: report on the activities and proclamations of powerful states in such a way as to further, rather than hinder, both the free flow of information and genuinely democratic expression.
The ongoing WikiLeaks drama points to a potentially transformational arrangement between old and new media forms much better equipped to enable just that.
Hamish Ford is a lecturer in Film, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Newcastle.
___________
Australian Media's Finest Defend Wikileaks
13 December 2010
Written by Walkleys
Australia’s most senior media professionals have written to Prime Minister Julia Gillard today to express their support for WikiLeaks...
The letter was initiated by the Walkley Foundation and signed by the ten members of the Walkley Advisory Board as well as editors of major Australian newspapers and news websites and the news directors of the country’s three commercial TV networks and two public broadcasters.
“In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.
It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.”
The full letter sent to Prime Minister Julia Gillard can be viewed here and is also available below:
Dear Prime Minister,
STATEMENT FROM AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER EDITORS, TELEVISION AND RADIO DIRECTORS AND ONLINE MEDIA EDITORS
The leaking of 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables is the most astonishing leak of official information in recent history, and its full implications are yet to emerge. But some things are clear. In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.
In this case, WikiLeaks, founded by Australian Julian Assange, worked with five major newspapers around the world, which published and analysed the embassy cables. Diplomatic correspondence relating to Australia has begun to be published here.
The volume of the leaks is unprecedented, yet the leaking and publication of diplomatic correspondence is not new. We, as editors and news directors of major media organisations, believe the reaction of the US and Australian governments to date has been deeply troubling. We will strongly resist any attempts to make the publication of these or similar documents illegal. Any such action would impact not only on WikiLeaks, but every media organisation in the world that aims to inform the public about decisions made on their behalf. WikiLeaks, just four years old, is part of the media and deserves our support.
Already, the chairman of the US Senate homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, is suggesting The New York Times should face investigation for publishing some of the documents. The newspaper told its readers that it had ‘‘taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security.’’ Such an approach is responsible — we do not support the publication of material that threatens national security or anything which would put individual lives in danger. Those judgements are never easy, but there has been no evidence to date that the WikiLeaks material has done either.
There is no evidence, either, that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have broken any Australian law. The Australian government is investigating whether Mr Assange has committed an offence, and the Prime Minister has condemned WikiLeaks’ actions as ‘‘illegal’’. So far, it has been able to point to no Australian law that has been breached.
To prosecute a media organisation for publishing a leak would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press. In Australia, it would seriously curtail Australian media organisations reporting on subjects the government decides are against its interests.
WikiLeaks has no doubt made errors. But many of its revelations have been significant. It has given citizens an insight into US thinking about some of the most complex foreign policy issues of our age, including North Korea, Iran and China.
It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.
Yours faithfully
Clinton Maynard, news director, 2UE
David Penberthy, editor-in-chief, news.com.au
Eric Beecher, chairman, Crikey, Smart Company, Business Spectator, The Eureka Report
Gay Alcorn, editor, The Sunday Age
Garry Bailey, editor, The Mercury (Hobart)
Garry Linnell, editor, The Daily Telegraph
Ian Ferguson, director of news and programs, Sky News Australia/New Zealand
Jim Carroll, network director of news and public affairs, Ten Network
Julian Ricci, editor, Northern Territory News
Kate Torney, director of news, ABC
Mark Calvert, director of news and current affairs, Nine Network
Melvin Mansell, editor, The Advertiser (Adelaide)
Megan Lloyd, editor, Sunday Mail (Adelaide)
Michael Crutcher, editor, The Courier Mail,
Mike van Niekerk, editor in chief, Fairfax online
Paul Cutler, news director, SBS
Paul Ramadge, editor-in-chief, The Age
Peter Fray, editor-in-chief, The Sydney Morning Herald
Peter Meakin, director of news and public affairs, Seven Network
Rick Feneley, editor, The Sun-Herald
Rob Curtain, news director, 3AW
Rod Quinn, editor, The Canberra Times
Sam Weir, editor, The Sunday Times
Scott Thompson, The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
Simon Pristel, editor, Herald Sun
Tory Maguire, editor, The Punch
Walkley Advisory Board
Gay Alcorn
Mike Carlton
Helen Dalley
John Donegan
Peter Meakin
Laurie Oakes
Jeni O'Dowd
Alan Kennedy
Malcolm Schmidtke
Fenella Souter
You can also read statements made earlier this month by the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) concerning WikiLeaks here.
Hết trích
No comments:
Post a Comment