There’s a lot to be disturbed about–from national-security scenarios and compromised individuals to media responsibility and hypocrisy–over that cache of confidential diplomatic cables publicly exposed by WikiLeaks.
Ironically, in the name of “exposing” big government, WikiLeaks also exposed itself. It’s not about whistle-blowing and keeping government honest. It’s a narcissistic, conscience-challenged, pseudo-revolutionary hacker outfit that cares much more about its disingenuous, headline-hunting agenda than concern over imperiling lives–directly and indirectly–and compromising sovereign relationships.
Actually, WikiLeaks might have impressed more than just budding anarchists–and possibly done something of merit–had they had the zeal, guts, commitment and contacts to not limit themselves to the accommodating West. America, like all countries, necessarily traffics in confidential diplomatic cables. It’s fundamental to information collection. It would be betraying American interests were it not to.
But America is easily targeted; it’s the most open society in the world. Imagine if WikiLeaks had outted some nefarious agendas emanating out of Tehran, Pyongyang or Beijing. But that would require a level playing field and a purpose beyond intimidating sensationalism. That’s not the purview of terrorists.
It’s hardly surprising, alas, that major media, which gave purloined and exposed embassy cables their gravitas legs and extended exposure, have not accepted responsibility. This, after all, was an act of sabotage. But not to, among others, the self-serving New York Times. “Just doing our job,” it has, in effect, reminded those who question, “but we’re doing it very, very carefully. Sure, it’s classified information, and sure some of its revelations could blow some covers, endanger some people and unravel critically sensitive international relations, but we’ll be the judge of that, thank you.”
Perhaps the Times is still in over-reaction mode to what Judith Miller did for the Bush Administration in 2003. Miller was the one who helped make the case, as only an ambitious reporter with the high-profile, high-credibility NYT can, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and needed a good invasion and regime change.
One other point. It’s mystifying–and scary–how easily accessible this sensitive, government material has been to low-level functionaries. There are national security “loopholes”?