The NYT‘s decision to publish most of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables and their explanation of it offer an interesting look at some of the thorniest issues in media, regardless of what one thinks of Wikileaks.
Perhaps it’s out there already, but what I’d particularly like to know is what Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame thinks–is this kind of leaking similar? Was his leaking different in that it served a very particular purpose? What exactly is the purpose of this leak, and does it need one to be justified?
Me, I’m reserving judgment at this point.
Literal calls for Assange’s head by Conservative clown Jonah Goldberg seem a bit overboard (and my apologies to my friends who are actual clowns). Unless, perhaps, you’re the Azerbaijani First Lady and your love of facelifts has been publicly revealed. Check out the page–apparently she’s trying to cop Sarah P’s aesthetic.
But here’s what the Times‘ editors have to say, in part:
The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.
After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.
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.
…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.
From what I’ve read so far, there is one item in particular that seems particularly damaging–the government of Yemen (embroiled in a massive internal struggle between former North and South Yemen, and home to one of Al Qaeda’s most successful branches) has continually fought the perception that military strikes against terrorists in the country are in fact American. They’ve tried to combat the growing numbers of young men turning to Al Qaeda based in part on that perception. These cables reveal the Yemeni president assuring Gen. Petraeus that they’ll continue to take responsibility for American missile strikes. Not pretty.
