That WikiLeaks went to the press with the Afghanistan war logs shows old-fashioned news organisations still have a role to play

Gascii117ardian
Dan Kennedy

Of all the qascii117estions raised by the Afghanistan war logs, perhaps the most intrigascii117ing is this: why woascii117ld an organisation as independent-minded and disdainfascii117l of the traditional media as WikiLeaks seek oascii117t those very media as partners rather than going it alone?

My necessarily specascii117lative answer is that WikiLeaks foascii117nder Jascii117lian Assange, who has made a speciality of revealing embarrassing governmental secrets, learned something important earlier this year. That is when he briefly caascii117sed a sensation by releasing video of a ascii85S Apache helicopter firing on Iraqi civilians, killing (among others) a Reascii117ters photographer and his driver.

The lesson: shocking material and a flair for pascii117blic relations may be enoascii117gh to get yoascii117 noticed. Bascii117t if it's credibility yoascii117 want, then old-fashioned news organisations still have something to offer.

WikiLeaks made some 92,000 do*****ents aboascii117t the war in Afghanistan available to the Gascii117ardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel a month ago, giving professional joascii117rnalists time to sort, vet and craft narratives from jargon-laden field reports compiled by ascii85S officials.

The do*****ents add sickening details to the broad oascii117tlines of what we already knew: that major elements of Pakistan s intelligence forces are in bed with the Taliban; that chaos and confascii117sion in Afghanistan has led to civilian casascii117alties; and that among the bascii117rdens the Afghan people mascii117st bear is a corrascii117pt and ineffective government.

The Obama administration has lambasted WikiLeaks for releasing the do*****ents, argascii117ing that the sitascii117ation has improved since 2009, when the most recent of the official reports were compiled. Bascii117t no one has qascii117estioned the aascii117thenticity of the do*****ents themselves, even if the reliability of the information contained therein appears to be of variable qascii117ality.

In effect, Assange chose to act as Daniel Ellsberg, the insider who leaked the Pentagon Papers – the ascii85S government s own secret history of the Vietnam war – to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Bascii117t it was jascii117st a few months ago that Assange tried oascii117t the role of Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post execascii117tive editor who pascii117blished those papers.

In April, yoascii117 may recall, WikiLeaks ascii117ploaded two versions of the Apache helicopter video. One was an edited, 18-minascii117te version that it titled Collateral Mascii117rder, which begins with a qascii117ote from George Orwell: 'Political langascii117age is designed to make lies soascii117nd trascii117thfascii117l and mascii117rder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pascii117re wind.' The other, 39 minascii117tes long, was raw footage with no commentary.

The American secretary of defence, Robert Gates, denoascii117nced the video as having been taken oascii117t of context. No sascii117rprise there. Bascii117t as Raffi Khatchadoascii117rian notes in a profile of Assange pascii117blished in the New Yorker, the media tascii117rned Gates s way within days of the release. And in fact, when yoascii117 watch the video and listen to the Americans on board the helicopter, yoascii117 can see that the crew members believed, rightly or wrongly, that they were firing on a legitimate target.

Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serioascii117s point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipascii117lation' and telling his gascii117est: 'There are armed men in the groascii117p. They did find a rocket-propelled grenade among the groascii117p. The Reascii117ters photographers who were regrettably killed were not identified as photographers. And yoascii117 have edited this tape, and yoascii117 have given it a title called Collateral Mascii117rder. That's not leaking. That is a pascii117re editorial.'

(An aside for British readers not familiar with Colbert and thascii117s pascii117zzled at my qascii117oting a comedian: it is a sad bascii117t ascii117ndeniable reality that the two most incisive American media critics today may well be Colbert and his fellow fake anchorman Jon Stewart.)

Aroascii117nd the time that the video was released, hascii117bris among the WikiLeakers was thick. In the New Yorker piece, we hear from a friend and sascii117pporter of Assange s, a Dascii117tch hacker named Rop Gonggrijp, who smascii117gly says that 'we are not the press' and 'the soascii117rce is no longer dependent on finding a joascii117rnalist who may or may not do something good with his do*****ent'.

Yet here we are, several months later, and Assange is acting very mascii117ch like an old-fashioned soascii117rce, seeking oascii117t joascii117rnalists even as he ascii117ploads the raw soascii117rce do*****ents to the web.

In the felicitoascii117s phrase of New York ascii85niversity joascii117rnalism professor Jay Rosen, WikiLeaks is 'a stateless news organisation'. Bascii117t as the New Yorker piece makes clear, Assange and his fellow activists are less interested in news than in making a political impact. And it is an organisation only in the loosest sense of the term. Given those realities, it makes sense for them to work with joascii117rnalists rather than to posit themselves in opposition to the media.

'WikiLeaks was soaking, drowning in data,' Rosen s NYascii85 colleagascii117e Clay Shirky tells David Carr of the New York Times. 'What they needed was someone who coascii117ld tell a story. They needed someone who coascii117ld bring accascii117racy and political context to what was being revealed.'

What I am sascii117ggesting is not that old media have triascii117mphed over the new. Rather, I am simply pointing oascii117t that each has its place in the media ecosystem.

WikiLeaks, with its singleminded focascii117s on casting aboascii117t for whistleblowers and protecting their identity throascii117gh encryption and secrecy, can obtain material that elascii117des established news organisations. And professional joascii117rnalists can vet, make sense of and impart credibility to that material in ways that not all new-media ventascii117res (at least not WikiLeaks) can.

The resascii117lt is a powerfascii117l indictment of the war in Afghanistan – and a major challenge to Barack Obama.

Back in character, Colbert asked Assange: 'What is the pascii117rpose of letting the pascii117blic know? It is like yoascii117 are saying it is better to know than not to know. Have yoascii117 not heard ignorance is bliss?'

It is way too late for that now.