WikiLeaks Screws Politicians and Journalists
The extraordinary WikiLeaks website is entertaining us with such notable revelations as the use of Botox on the old face of the author of “The Green Book,” [Muammar] Gaddafi, or the diplomatic nicknames of the Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev — compared to comic book characters Batman and Robin — bat-worshiping, ferocious combatants in tights.
The practical demonstration of the professional use of hypocrisy that states’ diplomats shelter is not a big surprise. But to see that after the end of the Cold War and the shattering of the Soviet bloc the exercise of American espionage is carried out by closely watching the U.N. secretary general himself is something that would break the heart of even the blindest of believers in the peace-loving good nature of the so-called democratic, free Western nations.
It is obvious that WikiLeaks revelations are important. It’s obvious that the exposure of the American diplomats’ private thoughts brings trouble for the biggest power in the world. It is possible that the motivations of the leader of these leaks, Julian Assange, are strange. In the meantime, he was subject to an attempt to discredit him, possibly orchestrated by the same people he is denouncing.
It is inevitable that Portuguese diplomacy will also be placed on the firing line and, I am guessing, ridiculed when it will be announced what is said of it on the 250,000 pages that the world is getting to know. And yes, it is true: Journalism seems to be collapsing.
No, I am not complaining that such relevant newspapers as The New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian or der Spiegel decided to publish this information that threatens to question international relations between the most important countries in the world, that can in fact put human lives in danger if there is an error in what is being published and has a voyeuristic component which is unnecessary. Nevertheless, if I had access to that information I would have published it as well.
What I am complaining about is that not even the best newspapers in the world were capable of deserving the trust of the sources so that these papers would have been the ones to find this information and work on it according to clear journalistic criteria. I am complaining about years and years of routine, conformity, petty politics, cowardice, careerism, mercantilism and stupidity which placed the newspapers at a level of mistrust from the public that is normally associated with politicians. I am complaining about newspapers pretending to be newspapers only when WikiLeaks defies the essence of their reason for being.
The practical demonstration of the professional use of hypocrisy that states’ diplomats shelter is not a big surprise. But to see that after the end of the Cold War and the shattering of the Soviet bloc the exercise of American espionage is carried out by closely watching the U.N. secretary general himself is something that would break the heart of even the blindest of believers in the peace-loving good nature of the so-called democratic, free Western nations.
It is obvious that WikiLeaks revelations are important. It’s obvious that the exposure of the American diplomats’ private thoughts brings trouble for the biggest power in the world. It is possible that the motivations of the leader of these leaks, Julian Assange, are strange. In the meantime, he was subject to an attempt to discredit him, possibly orchestrated by the same people he is denouncing.
It is inevitable that Portuguese diplomacy will also be placed on the firing line and, I am guessing, ridiculed when it will be announced what is said of it on the 250,000 pages that the world is getting to know. And yes, it is true: Journalism seems to be collapsing.
No, I am not complaining that such relevant newspapers as The New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian or der Spiegel decided to publish this information that threatens to question international relations between the most important countries in the world, that can in fact put human lives in danger if there is an error in what is being published and has a voyeuristic component which is unnecessary. Nevertheless, if I had access to that information I would have published it as well.
What I am complaining about is that not even the best newspapers in the world were capable of deserving the trust of the sources so that these papers would have been the ones to find this information and work on it according to clear journalistic criteria. I am complaining about years and years of routine, conformity, petty politics, cowardice, careerism, mercantilism and stupidity which placed the newspapers at a level of mistrust from the public that is normally associated with politicians. I am complaining about newspapers pretending to be newspapers only when WikiLeaks defies the essence of their reason for being.