Governments in modern democratic states require the consent of the governed. For people to give their consent to those who govern, they need to be informed about what their governments are doing. Illegitimate forms of governance are ones that violate this principle. We can see it in oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where the governments can act dictatorially with draconian top down laws, coercing people's will.
In Western societies, where there is a notion of free press, governments don't engage in outright violence. Instead they engage in secrecy and manipulation of public perception, as Noam Chomsky documents in his seminal book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which fits into this category. Assange, through his work with WikiLeaks, defended the public's right to know. By publishing material that is verified to be authentic and is of public interest, WikiLeaks helped to keep the government honest and make it function on the principle of consent of the governed.
How does what you call 'Revolutionary Journalism' compare to good old adversarial journalism?
The role of journalism from the very beginning was to perform vital checks and balances of government power. The founding fathers of the US had an inherent distrust of the government. Thomas Jefferson once noted that if he had to choose between the government and the newspaper, he would choose the latter. So the press was meant to be a watchdog. Sadly the media has now been infiltrated with commercial interests, and is failing to fulfil this role. Corporate media has become a stenographer of power. Instead of seeking the truth and challenge power, they lie and deceive the public.
When I say WikiLeaks is revolutionary, I am echoing the sentiment described by Orwell's phrase, "in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". When western governments criticise WikiLeaks and create controversy, it actually is deflecting people from recognising the failure of established media and their lack of commitment to the duty of a free press. What WikiLeaks does is not radical. It is in line with the US tradition of a free press. Defense witness on the second week of Assange's extradition hearing testified that WikiLeaks publication of Iraq War Logs released in 2010 revealed an estimated 15,000 civilians causalities that were previously unknown. This reporting on deaths of innocent people, the consequences of war, is real journalism and WikiLeaks set an excellent standard for all other media organizations to follow.
In the 60s, we had alternative media streams-the birth of FM radio, which activists listened to, as well as magazines like Ramparts, which gave long-read exposes of what The Man was up to. Can you compare Ramparts to WikiLeaks?
I don't compare WikiLeaks to Ramparts. WikiLeaks invented scientific journalism, which was unprecedented. Just like scientists writing a scientific paper are required to provide all data that they used to form their conclusions, WikiLeaks publishes full archives (after going through harm minimisation process, to redact information that brings imminent harm). In fact, the London court at Assange's extradition hearing heard from witness testimonies that Assange took great care of handling material and that WikiLeaks had a very rigorous redaction process in place.
Also, after 10 years of publication, no evidence of harm has been found caused by WikiLeaks publications. Also because of WikiLeaks commitment to provide the public full documents, a German citizen who was mistakenly identified as a terrorist and kidnapped and tortured by the CIA was able to find information that relate to his case. He was able to use this at the court and get justice. Now, during the court hearing, Khalid El-Masri gave a written statement at the London court. He was trying to testify at the court, but was not able to do so due to technical difficulties. US prosecutors objected to him giving live testimony.
WikiLeaks scientific journalism provides a means for ordinary people to directly engage with the material. This allows each individual to independently check the claims of journalists and this enables a mechanism of accountability for journalists. So, with WikiLeaks, the source of legitimacy that used to be placed in the "objectivity" of journalists (that determine their editorial decisions) is now placed in the actual source documents. People don't have to believe in journalists, they can independently check the validity of the reporting on their own.
If anything, I say, WikiLeaks is Howard Zinn on steroids! Just like Zinn, who worked to restore the history of ordinary people, WikiLeaks brings information back to the historical record. By opening the archives, WikiLeaks freed people from a stolen history that repeats the abuses of the past. Leaked documents allow us to look at past events anew and restore perspectives that were oppressed and pushed to the margins. History can no longer be censored and written by those in power. Now ordinary people can claim their own history and participate in its unfolding narratives.
There are different kinds of whistleblowers. One can do great good, but still be motivated by venial desires. FBI assistant director, Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat, was very helpful in bringing down Nixon. But only because he was angry for being overlooked by Nixon for promotion to director after Hoover died. He was motivated by a type of revenge. But also, it means that had he been made director, he would have sat on that criminal information. Woodward and Bernstein turned him into a 'hero' but, really, he wasn't. How would you compare someone like Deep Throat to the kinds of whistleblowers we need today?
I think what you are saying is difference between a "leaker" and whistleblower. What makes someone a whistleblower is his or her motive. Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden are whistleblowers. They identified themselves as citizens, as part of the public. Their interests were to defend the public's right to know. Their act of releasing information was done in service of common people.
Whereas, so called a leaker doesn't release information out of a sense of duty to defend public interests. For me, what really determines someone's act of whistleblowing is conscience. I see the highest law of the land is ideals that were described in the words of Jefferson at the beginning of this country. Those ideals that inspired and united all people are not codified into law yet. It is inscribed into the heart of each person. To me conscience is a language of the heart that remembers our inherent obligation to one another. This tiny voice inside each of us reminds us when those ideals are violated and urges us to act and uphold those ideals. Manning and Snowden followed the voice of conscience and it is only through those acts of ordinary people that the highest law of the land can truly be enforced.
How would you describe the greatest benefit Assange has gifted us as global citizens?
Even though WikiLeaks is a transnational journalistic organisation, I see their work as being very much tied to the impulse that came through the US during its Revolutionary War against Great Britain. This impulse was people's aspiration toward individual liberty. I think what happened at the time in the US was historically significant and its impact is not only important for the US but also for the entire world. US independence from King George III set a new trajectory in history. It opened up a possibility to move away from monarchy and into creating a society based on the rule of law.
Thomas Jefferson, as a principal author of the Declaration of Independence stated that, "All men are created equal" and have certain unalienable rights that we are all endowed with, such as "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Those words inspired people around the world-even to this day.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
