WIKILEAKS: Is Transparency the New Objectivity?

Transparent: Easy to perceive or detect (Wiki, 2011)

Objective: Based on observable phenomena; presented factually (Free Online Dictionary, 2011)

From these definitions, transparency and objectivity aren’t at all mutually exclusive.

The seminar presented today was on WikiLeaks and their ideal of transparency, with the question of would if replace objectivity?

For starters, a lot of the discussion at the end centred on that while WikiLeaks broke stories and provided lots of document information, most of the class still heard about these stories through traditional news sources, which provide the objectivity as well as the information.

In fact, WikiLeaks feed their information to major news organisations such as NY Times for them to wade through the masses of documents to find the story. Although WikiLeaks will report a story themselves, they also provide the documents online for all to see.

I for one have never visited WikiLeaks to wade through the masses of documents to find the truth. I’d prefer to wait for professional journalists to do the hard work and give me an objective summary.

One thing I think is missing in the ‘transparent world’ ideal is a little bit of context. Its one thing to provide masses of information on scandals or government documents, but this doesn’t necessarily provide the whole story. An objective view is needed to give context to its readers.

Another thing hindering context, and hindering the public hearing the full story (or total transparency) is the fact that while submitters to WikiLeaks remain anonymous, we cannot be sure of their motives or even further information they might have that they might be leaving out.

The WikiLeaks website states that ‘publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people’ (WikiLeaks, 2010).

Personally, I think this ‘dumping of information’ may be effective in getting a reaction in the short term, yet in the long term, its accuracy, balance (or objectivity) and value should be questioned.