(Source from: youtube.com)
WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organisation, their primary purpose is to bring important news and information to the public (WikiLeaks, n,d), as a matter of fact, they are well-known in exposing official secrets such as materials that governments would prefer to keep secret (ABC NEWS, 2010).
According to Cherian George (cited steele, J, 2008), the journalism practiced at Malaysiakini (in this case Wikileaks, which are practicing the same form of journalism) are “contentious”. Steele (2008) further note that Internet news (WikiLeaks) are contentious in that they directly and explicitly challenge the authority of elites in setting the national agenda and in forging consensus. Furthermore, According George (2006), Governments are not the only institutions targeted by this particular movement’s claims where It is also in contention with the institutional news media and the norms of professional journalism and that the claim that it counts as ‘journalism’ is itself contentious.
In the letter, written to the Prime Minister, they argue that "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" (ABC news, 2010). Similarly, they are trying to defend the notion that by publishing official leaks should not be regarded as going against the law. Their reason is that, the prohibition regarding that kind of information to be published will not only impact WikiLeaks but also every media organization in the world that aims to inform the public about decision made on their behalf (ABC news, 2010).
In my opinion, there are right and there are wrong in what the WikiLeaks website provides to the general public which depends on how people view it from their own point of view. Therefore, I agree that the public must be made known of any information that should be of their concern especially on information regarding their country, the place they live. The government should not have banned such information to be published because the citizens have their rights to know what is going on in the country, the government, the nation and so on. Conversely, WikiLeaks should also be aware that to publish this kind of information requires huge responsibility, what if the information published has the potential to threaten the national’s security or would put certain individual lives in danger? As such, WikiLeaks should consider being more sensitive to their readers (Putnis and Petelin, 1996) because they have diverse reader from all over the world. Nonetheless, there is still no evidence proving that WikiLeaks have broken any Australian law (ABC news, 2010).
References:
ABC news, 2010 ‘Media chiefs throw support behind Wikileaks’, viewed on 2 June 2011, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/13/3092174.htm>
Steele, J, 2008 'Professionalism Online: How Malaysiakini Challenges Authoritarianism', The International Journal of Press/Politics, viewed on 2 June 2011, <http://www.gwu.edu/~smpa/faculty/documents/Professionalism_Online.pdf>
Putnis, P & Petelin, R 1996, Professional communication: principles and applications, Prentice Hall, Sydney.
Provide concept of "contentious" alternative media by Cherian George/ some other authors to explain how new media becomes watchdog of government.
ReplyDeleteAdd this in by 13 June.