The media's role in Wikileaks revelations

The controversial whistle-blowing site Wikileaks has today released a cache of 250,000 secret messages sent by US diplomatic staff, mostly between 2003 and 2008.

The leaks were released in advance to the New York Times and Britain's The Guardian.

Here's how two of the most influencial newspapers on either side of the Atlantic explain their role in publishing the leaks.

Simon Jenkins writes that The Guardian had one moral responsibility in deciding to publish the Wikileaks communiques:

"(The Guardian) ... could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

"In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and 'representations' were invited in return. These were considered. Details of 'redactions' were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard."

He goes on to say that this batch of leaks contains nothing too earth-shattering. In fact, they are rather tame compared to July's and October's leaks of sensitive war memos relating to Iraq and Afghanistan:

"The disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do."

The more important milestone, Jenkins considers, is that today sees the breakdown of the myth that any information or data kept behind electronic walls is impenetrable.

"The walls round policy formation and documentation are all but gone. All barriers are permeable."

And Jenkins sums up his newspaper's role in a single sentence:

"The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment."

Indeed.

In their editorial A note to readers - the decision to publish, the New York Times editors echo many of the sentiments expressed by the Guardian:

"The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest.

"As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy."

But the Times also emphasises that the media's role is not to censor memos simply because may leave government bureaucrats red-faced:

"On the other hand, we are less likely to censor candid remarks simply because they might cause a diplomatic controversy or embarrass officials."

The Times goes on to admit that one pragmatic reason to publish is that it will soon be all over the world wide web anyway.

"... But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations - and, in some cases, duplicity - of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid.

"They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing.

"As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name."

- compiled by nzherald staff