" Quid pro quo, Clarice. I say things and you tell me things ". Hannibal Lecter, " The Silence of the Lambs .
Publication massive leaks from Wikileaks is one of the signs of our time, the Internet, freedom of information and transparency. In a few days we tried to digest thousands of diplomatic cables disparate information, an amount of data left many questions in the air.
First, Wikileaks has delegated its information to the newspapers 'traditional'. Why? I think an intelligent position, you ensure greater dissemination and delegates also ethics. Wikileaks provides information and are the journalists to corroborate this, they bring credibility among both massive data. Wash hands. So is a triumph of journalism to have more information than ever? I think it's emphasis. Moreover, Wikileaks has challenged the traditional journalism, to get information to which the journalists had not agreed. But what credibility they have some traditional newspapers have proved to be unsuccessful informative? What can make now? "The journalism today is reduced to checking the information Wikileaks? Also curious is the attack from newspapers that have received the information from Wikileaks and not, as if the news had less value if not in your power.
Second, the conspiracy theory. Information is never neutral. Who benefits? Quid pro quo, I say things and you tell me things. This seems to me fundamentally, who benefits from this. Who is Assange? What are you looking? Why the lack of transparency on Wikileaks? Let us paranoid. Have you any information posted or saved things from friends or countries that "sit well"? Why why can not brew false information from thousands of authentic papers? Imagine that fatal falls Assange President of Banco Santander and sneaks a libel upon him and published, protected by the credibility he has earned with other cables that do are true. I think there is much danger in all this, and is being given an immediate impact, almost without digesting the data and regardless of the consequences. Wikileaks does not seek to inform, not to be naive. Is political. And the first level.
Thirdly, most of the information that has come down now hallway gossip, conversations and impressions of Ambassadors on this or that head of state. Gaddafi that if she is afraid to fly over the water. What if Putin and Merkel. Neither the Cuore. Others are not new and we all knew. I think no one is surprised to read that the English government helped not prosecute American soldiers who killed Couso. And here we enter into the discussion of national security, public interest, diplomacy ... As one professor of law, all countries have diplomatic and confidential information, and it's like the bathroom of a house, not taught to visitors but is necessary.
What is clear is that Wikileaks has already won. How citizens respond? " Wikiactions ?
By C.
0 comments:
Post a Comment