A technological motor of the third industrial revolution - one that follows firstly the steam engine and, secondly, electricity - digital technology is in this context a decisive battlefield. It is one that opposes citizens to those in power who wish to prevent the horizontal extension of freedom, and maintain the imposition of a vertical system of control. The internet is a universe without borders, a place of sharing and exchanging, of helping the circulation and preservation of information, without obstacles of access or storage limits. As such, it is a wonderful lever with which to push back the secrecy used by governments and administrations to fool the public and to escape judgment. Above all, the internet allows every individual to use his or her rights, to fulfill duties, or to warn against practices or dangers, which previously could only be accomplished via professional intermediaries.
Obviously, this change in the order of things destabilizes the powers that be, their professional culture and their editorial bearings - and, among them, at the fore, are journalists. Used to being the gatekeepers of information, until now the only guarantors and providers who chose and set the news agenda, the journalistic establishment now finds itself in competition with citizen whistelblowers, newly endowed with the freedom to independently and directly deliver information about matters they consider of essential and legitimate interest. But this unpredictable process unfolding before us has already illustrated that this does not have to be one of conflict between one camp and the other, amateurs against professionals, but rather that it can be a joint action, through a change in established practices and an evolution in cultural markers.
Thus it is that WikiLeaks, which publishes online unedited documents without accompanying analysis from journalists or comments from readers, decided to call upon the services of media professionals, those of the old paper press, to edit, prioritize and categorize the information. Nevertheless, in the absence of clear information about how the collaboration with five newspapers worldwide was organized, that choice is one that raises questions and necessitates debate.
How are the cables sifted and sorted out? What are the criterion used, day after day, to organize the revelations? What justifies the cuts and editing carried out, such as those in a US Paris Embassy cable concerning the relations between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merckel, or in another concerning French military plans in a cable about French relations with Francophone states in Africa?
The questions about how the leaks are presented are pertinent, just as are others about the high profile given to Julian Assange and which runs the danger of transforming a collective project into an individual adventure. Other questions concern the far too secret internal workings of WikiLeaks,which led to disagreements and even to the departures of some of its staff.
But these reservations are secondary to what are the big issues at stake, both from a point of view of democracy - the defence of our freedom to use and access digital information technology - and geo-politics - the secrecy surrounding American power.
That view is shared by US magazine ‘Wired', a leading publication on issues surrounding digital technology, and which has not been shy in its critical debate about the methods and functioning of WikiLeaks. In an editorial entitled ‘Why WikiLeaks is good for America' , published December 6th, Wired's Editor-in-Chief Evan Hansen wrote: "WikiLeaks is not perfect, and we have highlighted many of its shortcomings on this website. Nevertheless, it's time to make a clear statement about the value of the site and take sides: WikiLeaks stands to improve our democracy, not weaken it. The greatest threat we face right now from WikiLeaks is not the information it has spilled and may spill in the future, but the reactionary response to it that's building in the United States that promises to repudiate the rule of law and our free speech traditions, if left unchecked."
Revealing to what extent the digital business world will flout the very freedom of communication that allowed it to even exist and gather huge profits, the battle launched against WikiLeaks by the US administration was first organized as an alliance between power and wealth; without waiting to be forced by law, Amazon, PayPal, Visa, Mastercard and others transformed themselves into servile censors. But there was also a cyberwar, with attacks launched by non-identified pirates to bring down servers. It is also, above all, an ideological crusade, with calls in the US for Julian Assange to be prosecuted for espionage - even that he be assassinated for having become an ‘unlawful combatant' - the term employed by the Bush administration during its catastrophic programme of so-called ‘war on terror'.
0 comments:
Post a Comment