Media Watchdog Becoming a Bulldog?

By Michelle Consorte

America prides itself on a system of checks and balances, not the least of which is the media's check on government actions. Indeed, a well-functioning democracy requires the solid foundation of a civil society below it. This includes an open space for the media to operate freely without backlash or restraint from the government, even when much of the coverage focuses on governmental policies and actions in a negative light. Yet, when does the media "watchdog" become an offensive media "bulldog," generating more problems for the government, especially in terms of security, than solutions for the public? Is the recent exposure of 250,000 internal cables between diplomats by self-proclaimed media watchdog Wikileaks going too far?

Generally speaking, information is leaked for two reasons: 1) Politically to test the waters, i.e. figure out public reaction to an idea before the real move/policy is enacted so as to avoid backlash or future problems. 2) Vengefully or rightfully (depending on whose side you're on) to expose something or someone; "the truth" let's say for posterity's sake.

Yet, what was really exposed here? The fact that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was called the "Robin" to Vladimir Putin's "Batman?" Or that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was portrayed as "risk averse and rarely creative?" These accounts sound more like notes being passed in high school than legitimate security concerns or bold, defaming statements.

But is all of this chaos being down-played by the U.S. government as yet another smoke and mirrors illusion that needs to be exposed by the media, continuing the cycle? Or is the lack of threat in what was leaked legitimate?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was "confident that the administration’s diplomatic relationships would withstand the upheaval" caused by the Wikileaks exposé. During a news conference, Clinton said that many of her counterparts around the world had shrugged off any insults. One of them apparently told her, “Don’t worry about it. You should see what we say about you.” I'm not sure that's comforting...

Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that the cables are "organized to be released on a regular basis" as an attempt to hurt Iran, pointing to the depiction within several cables of a number of Arab leaders urging the U.S. to take strong action against Iran. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who says, vindicated, that the information in the cables confirms Israel's own assessment of the real Iranian threat.

In this case, the U.S. government's attempts to limit the damage caused by internal conversations between diplomats may be a charade in the hopes that Iran and other countries will play along and dismiss the event as nothing more than petty gossip. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, and those slighted by the U.S.'s words supposedly behind closed doors may not be so apt to join the side of this great power. But I doubt the depiction of Russia's government leaders as cartoon characters will completely destroy Moscow-Washington relations. If it does, the world may have bigger problems than previously thought.

So, what did Wikileaks really prove? Did they read through the information before releasing it or just hit send in a frenzied euphoria about the wealth of internal correspondence they had just received?

In my mind its not what was exposed that matters here but more the fact that it was exposed, and with such ease. More of a quantity over quality matter. Wikileaks is flexing its muscles, commanding attention and saying "look what we have the potential to do," rather than "look what we did."

What does this say about Wikileaks? Instead of a reactionary watchdog and check on U.S. government secrecy, Wikileaks has taken the offensive role in the relationship; drawing a line in the sand and telling the government that it needs to shape up and not cross that line. Otherwise it will be in some serious trouble from which it may not return completely intact. While, yes, there does need to be a check on the government and a continuous aim at transparency, how can we condone threats abroad and then allow them against our own government?

I also have to point out that if Wikileaks is indeed powerful enough to expose the deepest darkest secrets of the government, as it claims to be, isn't it possible for such sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands? While the German Chancellor's lack of ingenuity isn't exactly a measure of "good relations," it isn't top secret information like—hypothetically—a U.S. mission into the make-shift government of Rwanda would be. Exposing such—again, hypothetical—information would be an extremely dangerous breach of security for all parties involved. A case such as this would be chaotic, and the fact that Wikileaks flaunts its ability to create such a scenario, and prides itself on this, is frightening.

Yes, it's true that various treaties and documents including the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reserve citizens the right to free speech and free expression, and no one has a the ability or legitimacy to take that right away. I want to be very clear on that. However, I also want to point to the Supreme Court case in 1919 of Schenck v the United States in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. did not uphold Schenck's right to free speech in that particular case because he claimed it presented a "clear and present danger," and was akin to "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater." In other words, that the well-being of the masses trumps the free speech of one. Holmes is quoted below:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

We most definitely do need an open media and a check on government because this is what keeps democracy going. This is the bread and butter of a society in which the public takes precedent and has a high level of control over what its government does; a society with a government whose primary purpose is to serve the people. But, we also need some checks on the media for security purposes, which currently do not exist. We don't need a lot of them. But enough that a "clear and present danger" is not created by reporting.