The Facets of Intrusion
Published in Diarios de Noticia
(Portugal) on 4 December 2010
by J.-M. Nobre-Correia (link to
original)
Wow, what to think of this new and extended intrusion of WikiLeaks into the media world? And what media coverage! The WikiLeaks exposure appeared in at least four prestigious reference journals and a newsmagazine, which is the institution par excellence of German investigative journalism. This merits reflection, but a kind of reflection that is almost inevitably sparse...
The publication of American State Department diplomatic telegrams shows, if necessary, the immense and uncontrollable power the Internet has when it comes to information. Information, however, is not necessarily journalism, especially considering that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic enterprise. Yes, WikiLeaks is a document storage center. It required the effort of more than a hundred authors from five different types of media to collaborate and share information.
This intervention raises a fundamental question: Why publish such an important information "leak" on a website instead of in a well-established reference journal? Could it be that the articulation of media with reference to power, involving leaders of the media, is sometimes too obvious, leading to prudence and exaggerated Realpolitik?
There were at least two parties that opposed diplomatic telegram publishing. They were the media competitors who did not benefit from the work of WikiLeaks. However, do not be deceived, these media would not have thought twice about publicizing this information if they had the opportunity. They are like diplomats, then, who are just as hypocritical as small and large cults that want to be worshipped by citizens and democracy.
WikiLeaks’ documents were to be translated into three of the four largest international European languages (English, Spanish and French) and the largest deployment language in Europe (German). The third European international language (Portuguese) was not included. It would be good if the Portuguese-speaking editors questioned the reasons for their exclusion.
The publication of American State Department diplomatic telegrams shows, if necessary, the immense and uncontrollable power the Internet has when it comes to information. Information, however, is not necessarily journalism, especially considering that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic enterprise. Yes, WikiLeaks is a document storage center. It required the effort of more than a hundred authors from five different types of media to collaborate and share information.
This intervention raises a fundamental question: Why publish such an important information "leak" on a website instead of in a well-established reference journal? Could it be that the articulation of media with reference to power, involving leaders of the media, is sometimes too obvious, leading to prudence and exaggerated Realpolitik?
There were at least two parties that opposed diplomatic telegram publishing. They were the media competitors who did not benefit from the work of WikiLeaks. However, do not be deceived, these media would not have thought twice about publicizing this information if they had the opportunity. They are like diplomats, then, who are just as hypocritical as small and large cults that want to be worshipped by citizens and democracy.
WikiLeaks’ documents were to be translated into three of the four largest international European languages (English, Spanish and French) and the largest deployment language in Europe (German). The third European international language (Portuguese) was not included. It would be good if the Portuguese-speaking editors questioned the reasons for their exclusion.