Today a book goes on sale on how Assange has changed the face of journalism forever

Jan 31, 2011 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Today, the shelves of bookstores around the world will sell, “Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy” by David Leigh and Luke Harding. This is the first comprehensive account of how five top newspapers around the world came in possession of 250, 000 documents, consisting of cables sent by US diplomats around the world and released by Wikileaks. The authors are two leading Guardian (of London) investigative journalists who worked closely with Assange on the redaction and publication of the cables. I suppose every media person from all countries will secure a copy.
I would suggest that before you digest this volume, go through a fine piece of journalistic analysis by the editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Alan Rushbridger titled, Wikileaks: The Guardian’s role in the biggest leak in the history of the world.” In doing so, you would be able to better appreciate the angles used by the two authors. Surprisingly, the book will not be anti-Assange or pro-Assange. Rushbridger’s column should be used in the classroom. It is a top class reflection of how a media house should relate to a source that has materials that could alter the face of journalism and change the world too. Rushbridger’s piece tends to put Assange in a positive light but he finds the man strange, peculiar and at times exasperating.
The part of Rushbridger’s article that media operatives would find fascinating is his revelation that he recently got a note from retired journalist Max Frankel (now 80), that Frankel used forty years ago when he was a senior editor of the New York Times that found itself in court over the Pentagon Papers (1971). For those in journalism who do not know what the Pentagon Papers are, it is the antecedent of the Wikieleaks cables (the Pentagon papers consisted of two and a half million words; the Wikileaks cables, 300 million words).
An employee of the Pentagon, Daniel Ellsberg leaked a huge volume of highly classified Pentagon documents to the New York Times about the planning of the Vietnam War and how the US Government under President Johnson used subterfuge to go to war and hid the truth from Congress and the American people. Frankel’s note, going back forty years ago, is his position on how a media house should handle leaked information that has implications for the particular country and the world
Reading Rushbridger’s commentary will enable citizens around the world to understand the nationalistic concept that contest with the principles of journalism. In other words, journalism is what it is based on the country it resides in. As readers would know, Assange offered the cables to five print media; -El Pais (Spain), Der Spiegel (Germany), Le Monde (France), Guardian (UK) and the New York Times. Rushbridger explains that in the US, the Times had to be in constant touch with either the Pentagon, State Department or White House before publication. This is an intriguing revelation by Rushbridger that has implications for the way journalism is presented to the public
I will always remember the 180 degrees difference in the coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing, led by US forces by the BBC and the American media landscape. There was a subtle element of nationalism in the reporting of the conflict by American media organizations. On the other hand, the BBC presentations tended to be less patriotic even though the UK was the second largest army on the ground in Iraq. It may be interesting to readers to point out that Assange is more vilified in the US than in any other country, and is more reviled in the American media landscape. Of course that is understandable. The cables are on American foreign policy behavior around the globe and have more consequences for the US than any other country.
Reading Rushbridger’s essay, one is left with the distinct impression that he feels that Assange has changed the face of journalism forever. At the same time, Rushbridger implies that the debate on Assange will continue to divide journalists and citizens across the globe. Here in Guyana there have been three editorials on Assange from the two leading independent dailies – two from Kaieteur News, which was not critical of Assange and one from the Stabroek News that was harsh on Assange, calling him a publicity-seeker. In a world where wealthy states like the UK are cutting back on governmental spending, Wikileaks has revealed it has solid information on tax evasion by powerful banks. One hopes these bankers are investigated and if found guilty jailed for a long time.

---

---