A pro-WikiLeaks campaign by Australian grass-roots political activist organisation, Get Up!
Australian novelist and blogger James Bradley over at City of Tongues has a thoughtful analysis and collection of links relating to this whole WikiLeaks caper. James writes: ‘I’m not convinced total transparency is either practical or desirable. But by the same token confidentiality and control over the flow of information is one of the tools governments and other interests employ to control the public and manipulate public discourse and opinion’.
I agree with him. Democracies can only work effectively when the populace is armed with information and the truth – surely we learnt all about this in the 2010 Australian federal election, which was a dreadful state of affairs. However, there are times – perhaps very rarely but they do exist – when containing information is an altruistic action that a government can take.
So perhaps that’s the question: is this latest release of classified information by WikiLeaks an altruistic action? My conclusion based on the (albeit limited) reading I’ve done so far is yes. But can I really be sure?
I do have a great fear, however: that governments of all colours and stripes will in future be even more controlling of information, and even more spinny with their communication. So I agree with what others have said that this issue is essentially about the internet. The internet is the community’s tool, and collectively we’ll use it in countless ways to obtain and distribute the information we hunger for.
The best result from WikiLeaks’ activities in 2010 would be if there’s a genuine debate about how governments control information and how much information the community really wants to know. Perhaps at the end of the day we’re just more interested in the price of flat-screen tellies and the cricket score rather than whether or not we are being told porkies about the wars in which our country is involved?
So let’s have it. Is Julian Assange a terrorist? (He might be freaky-looking, but that doesn’t make him Osama Bin Laden Mark II.) Is Wikileaks good for stable international politics and relationships? How much do we really want to know about how we’re governed? Perhaps we’re better off thinking/believing that we’re safe rather than actually knowing that we’re not?
Or is it all just a storm in a tea cup?
Under the counter or a flutter in the dovecote 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 19, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Dec
Gabrielle Bryden
He is not a terrorist imo (and not freaky looking!). I think this will be a pivotal point in time, a monumental shift in the way politiicians will operate – they must assume that whatever communications they make will be made public (like infectious diseases – one must assume that every patient is infected and take the necessary precautions) – hiding the truth is patronising to the public and elitist (we know better than the public and they won’t understand if we tell them all the details).
December 20, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Dec
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Gabrielle, phew, I’m glad you commented because I was starting to think that either people didn’t care about this issue or they’re too frightened to write about it on-line (although it could simply be that the post was uninteresting, which is always a possibility). Or it could be that the WikiLeaks story is only big in Australia?
I agree with you that hiding the truth is patronising to the public, but what if that truth sets in train events that end up being very bad for…well…everyone?
Ah whatever. Happy Christmas!
December 20, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Dec
Gabrielle Bryden
I think the wikileaks story is huge everywhere – I think some people are afraid to discuss the issue – I’ve already got an ASIO file, so I’m not too concerned what they add to it (as long as they don’t arrest me – hahaha). There are probably some instances where the truth could be bad for everyone – but those instances would be in the minority I feel. I still think if a politician puts down information on paper (even documents exempt from FOI) than they should assume the information will one day become publicly available and they are accountable (even if it’s 30 years down the track like Cabinet in Confidence documents). Happy Christmas Nigel 🙂
December 20, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Dec
Nigel Featherstone
I agree that there are instances when the truth is bad for the broader community, but who makes those decisions? Are we being manipulated when governments (of any flavour) decide what’s best for us? But isn’t that why we put them there in the first place – to make decisions for us? Or should it be decisions WITH us?
In any case, providing information to the community about the events and decisions that effect people’s lives is a very important principle, and I like your point about how some Cabinet-in-Confidence documents are made available for everyone to read thirty years down the track. Though is that too late for people to make a difference?
Stuff it. Let’s just eat cake!
December 20, 2010 at 9:16+00:00Dec
Gabrielle Bryden
Yes, they are to make decisions for us but based on the platforms they were elected on and in ongoing consulation with the electorate (National security always seem to be outside this idea but whether it should or not is open to debate). Thirty years is too late – that’s why wikileaks is a paradigm shift away from the present (or should that be pre-present – haha) situation. Yeah whatever – stuff it – bring on the cake (and coffee of course)! I’m confusing myself 🙂