The whistleblowers’ website goes mainstream — reconfiguring ideas of journalism, transparency, openness and security in the internet age. Jillian C York reports
(more…)
I’ve just got back from the Frontline Club, where Julian Assange of WikiLeaks launched the whistleblowing site’s new “war diary” database.
The database is a remarkable piece of work, allowing people to track six years of the Afghan conflict in astounding detail.
But it should be approached with caution. As Assange acknowledged, the incident reports in the database come from US military sources. They are the day-to-day reports that soldiers send back. As such, they may have a distorted view.
Nonetheless, Assange did say today that he felt the database contained evidence of possible war crimes by US forces, though he was keen to point out that the Taliban did not come up “smelling of roses” from the evidence compiled.
I don’t think, as some (such as Index contributor Leah Borromeo) have claimed, this site “smashes open the doors of what journalism is all about.
But it is a different kind of information. Rather than the “big events” what we have here is the everyday drudge and cruelty of war. And presentation of information in this way, Assange suggested, might force armies to behave better in the field.
On Sunday (25 July) whistleblower website Wikileaks made public over 90,000 classified US military files on the war in Afghanistan, making it one of the biggest leaks in US history. The documents give a real time account of the conflict between January 2004 and December 2009 from the perspective of US personnel. Amongst other things they reveal that coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, that a secret “black” unit exists to kill or capture Taliban leaders without trial and that NATO officers fear Iranian and Pakistani intelligence are providing support for insurgents. The documents were released to the Guardian, New York Times and German magazine Der Spiegel for analysis several weeks ago and whilst Wikileaks did impose a publishing embargo until July 25, they did not influence how the news reports were formulated and did not reveal the source of the leak to the news organisations. The White House has not disputed the accuracy of the reports but “strongly condemned” the disclosure, believing that it could “threaten national security”.
On Thursday 17 June, The Icelandic Parliament unanimously voted in favour of legislation providing extensive protection for investigative journalism. The proposal, initiated by the Iceland Modern Media Initiative, safeguards whistle blower web sites such as Wikileaks, protects journalist’s sources and shields reporters from foreign libel rulings. Those championing the law, claim that its effect will be to make Iceland the world’s foremost protector of free speech.