A Powerful documentary on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange aired for the first time last night on More4. The programme, WikiLeaks Secrets and Lies, focused on how Guardian journalist Nick Davies tracked down Assange and hatched a plan which resulted in an alliance with the Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel. The alliance was seen as the best way of bringing the Afghan and Iraqi war logs to light, and later those highly embarrassing diplomatic cables. But it soured and this makes for fascinating viewing.
The programme also takes an indepth look at the Bradley Manning issue, and featured an hard to watch interview with hacker Adrian Lamo, who gained Manning’s trust and then turned him into the federal authorities.
But what I found most astounding and compelling, was the portrayal, by Guardian journalist Nick Davies and New York Times former editor Bill Keller, of Assange as a complaining, hostile but, more importantly, dishonest man. “I think most people who know him go through this process: you start off trusting and liking him, then suddenly this kind of monster appears from behind the scenes and you kind of think – where on earth did that come from,” Davies said. “You suddenly discover this extraordinarily dishonest man. I don’t know that I’ve ever met a human being as dishonest as Julian.”
Assange, not be outdone by Davies, called British journalism “the most credit-stealing, credit-whoring, back-stabbing industry I have ever encountered. Nick Davies is a part of that industry.”
Strong words indeed on both sides and this is a story with very grey areas, but for me, Assange is fading ever into the murkier side of it.
People wanted to believe in Assange as a modern day messiah, covertly traversing the globe like a James Bond character and exposing great wrongs all for the good of mankind.
While it seems to me that those who believe in the cult of Assnage and subscribe to the myth which surrounds him, will remain loyal, many will now simply lose faith in him. That is a real shame.
I had read the stories about the split in WikiLeaks, and reports about Assange’s increasingly dictarorial approach and overbearing personality. But I had believed they were exagerrated stories made up to discredit him. In any case, I didn’t think the man’s personality – or sex life- really mattered given the important work he was doing.
What is very worrying though, apart from his apparent God-complex, is Assange’s seeming disdain for responsible reporting.
And the way he treats the information he has been given. He seems to believe it’s OK to simply dump out moutains of files without going through them for possible dangers – ie protecting the names of people who might end up dead because they are in the public domain.
That this did not bother him is unsettling to say the least.
While watching the programme last night I made a similar comment on twitter, adding that I didnt’ consider Assange to be a journalist as he was not acting responsibly with the information he had been so priviliged to receive. I was lambasted and personally attacked as being an “average western journalist” who would never get close to doing what Assange has done.
It seems fans of Assange simply are not willing to accept the man is flawed and a bit of a loose canon. If he was a real journalist he would be interesting in meticulously going through the information, finding out what it means, putting it into context and making ethical judgements on what should be left out.
He prefers to find top secret information and spew it into the public domain unedited. I’m sorry but that is not journalism.
Even Amnesty international, who presented Assange with an award in 2009, criticised him for not reacting Afghan files with the names of informers. Five human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, wrote a letter to him on the issue, with another citing ”incredible irresponsibility”. (read here)
Yes, WikiLeaks opened up a whole new way of getting vital information into the public domain but with this amazing power must come resonsibility. An organisation which purports to be searching for the truth cannot end up putting lives at risk.
Those who back Assange say he is a beacon of light, a true hero, the ultimate journalist, brave.
But what about Bradley Manning? Isn’t he ultimately the brave one? He is rotting in a military prison for supposedly releasing these files (though this has not been proven).
Whether it was him or not – it is the whistleblowers who provided Assange with all of his information who deserve to be lauded. They are the ones taking the most dangerous risks.
And like it or not, it was a real journalist – Nick Davies – who brought WikiLeaks into the mainstream by doggedly following the story of Bradley Manning.
When the Guardian and the NYT backed Assange he finally got the notoriety he craved, but it seems to have been his undoing. Perhaps old and new media should never had got into bed so readily together in the first place. Two worlds not quite ready to collide….
Also worth reading is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-davies/post_1506_b_802680.html
