One more voice in defence of WikiLeaks
The long-awaited disclosure of hundreds of US Embassy documents caused a tidal wave of world media coverage and backlash from American politicians. These in turn provoked broad discussion on the consequences of this disclosure for international relations.
The Economist Blog published a very dubious article about the latest act of information sabotage carried out by WikiLeaks. The unnamed author claims that publishing the diplomatic correspondence into public domain is mere ‘gossiping’ due to the very fact that it was not intended for the eyes and ears of common folk. I felt an irresistible urge to confront this view and sent my critical comment, which I humbly publish here.
I find the views expressed in this article both outrageously hypocritical and intellectually corrupt.
Calling the WikiLeaks a mere source of rumours is a disgusting masterpiece of hypocrisy: enjoying his freedom of speech, the author ostracizes those who dare try to use theirs. Why? Just because their motifs do not seem worthy to him. Using this logic, one could renounce the defendant's right to defend himself in court on the grounds that he looks bad or cannot read. The motifs are irrelevant, when the right of a person to convey vitally significant information to the public is at stake.
Hypocrisy of the author's objection quaintly mirrors the hypocrisy of American politicians, who declare the ideals of "public diplomacy" (sic!) and then threaten the dissidents lifting the mysterious veil of this rotten diplomacy. So 'public diplomacy' turns out to mean private diplomacy, after all. Even George Orwell would be utterly petrified, I dare smirk.
Intellectual corruption is far more dangerous to the society than embezzlement or fraud, because it deprives people of critical thinking and freedom of choice. To know or not to know is not a question. Wikileaks gives people information, which bureaucrats want to hide from them using national security as a feeble excuse.
Contrary to what the author seems to believe, the world is changing: main-stream media are no longer the only (or even primary) source of information in a digital age; special services no longer control all the information flows and - more importantly - an average individual strives to know more than the Four Estates want him to know. Instead of crying foul, the diplomats and the mainstream media (whose information monopoly is gradually slipping away) should adept. However, many of them (and the author of this article) simply do not realize this yet.
I have read some nice words once: "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". Unfortunately, I can't seem to remember where I saw this high-spirited motto. Ah, I just recalled: apparently, it was on the pages of this respected publication, The Economist. Too bad the ignorance is taking its toll again.
The Economist Blog published a very dubious article about the latest act of information sabotage carried out by WikiLeaks. The unnamed author claims that publishing the diplomatic correspondence into public domain is mere ‘gossiping’ due to the very fact that it was not intended for the eyes and ears of common folk. I felt an irresistible urge to confront this view and sent my critical comment, which I humbly publish here.
I find the views expressed in this article both outrageously hypocritical and intellectually corrupt.
Calling the WikiLeaks a mere source of rumours is a disgusting masterpiece of hypocrisy: enjoying his freedom of speech, the author ostracizes those who dare try to use theirs. Why? Just because their motifs do not seem worthy to him. Using this logic, one could renounce the defendant's right to defend himself in court on the grounds that he looks bad or cannot read. The motifs are irrelevant, when the right of a person to convey vitally significant information to the public is at stake.
Hypocrisy of the author's objection quaintly mirrors the hypocrisy of American politicians, who declare the ideals of "public diplomacy" (sic!) and then threaten the dissidents lifting the mysterious veil of this rotten diplomacy. So 'public diplomacy' turns out to mean private diplomacy, after all. Even George Orwell would be utterly petrified, I dare smirk.
Intellectual corruption is far more dangerous to the society than embezzlement or fraud, because it deprives people of critical thinking and freedom of choice. To know or not to know is not a question. Wikileaks gives people information, which bureaucrats want to hide from them using national security as a feeble excuse.
Contrary to what the author seems to believe, the world is changing: main-stream media are no longer the only (or even primary) source of information in a digital age; special services no longer control all the information flows and - more importantly - an average individual strives to know more than the Four Estates want him to know. Instead of crying foul, the diplomats and the mainstream media (whose information monopoly is gradually slipping away) should adept. However, many of them (and the author of this article) simply do not realize this yet.
I have read some nice words once: "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". Unfortunately, I can't seem to remember where I saw this high-spirited motto. Ah, I just recalled: apparently, it was on the pages of this respected publication, The Economist. Too bad the ignorance is taking its toll again.