Kris Eckman

Eng. 335

Espionage is the New Free Press

It's a difficult country for the politically independent these days. Where can one possibly go to

find fair, unbiased news-worthy news? Fox, of course, has a highly conservative slant that can turn

many viewers away with it's combative discourse (Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity). CNN is

slightly liberal, but they're also slightly full of people who don't really know what they're talking about

most of the time (Wolf Blitzer, Elliot Spitzer, Rick Sanchez). Then there is MSNBC, which has a

highly liberal slant, with an odd mixture of passive-aggressive snarkiness (Rachel Maddow, Keith

Olbermann, or David Schuster). The point is, it's hard to trust any one place for news. Mix that with the

fact that the news is used for the mass reproduction of information for the public, and it becomes easy

to see why public discourse in this country is falling apart. Nobody is advantaged by simply telling the

straight facts anymore, and the way in which our political parties and corporations present themselves

in the news leads to nothing but strife. Enter Mr. Julian Assange.

Julian Assange has been a subject of much debate lately. His website, Wikileaks.com, is a

repository for information that, for various reasons, was not meant to reach the public. Though the site

has existed for close to 4 years, it has only been within the last few months that any government has

given Mr. Assange any serious attention. Last year, his website hosted a video titled “Collateral

Murder” which garnered him some attention, but this was only a small taste of what was coming. A few

months later, he was all over the news. This was because of his website publishing over 400,000

documents pertaining to the United States' involvement in various Middle Eastern conflicts, and also

included embarrassing and troubling descriptions of “diplomatic” activities. 250,000 of those

documents had been released through popular news organizations such as The Guardian (UK), The

New York Times (USA), Der Speigel (Germany), and others. Not only did those documents cause a
huge uproar in the United States government, but the entire world was now beginning to see the

importance of Julian Assange. Of course, his importance was likened to a large crack in a full bathtub.

As the government tried desperately to seal the dripping leak, people all around the world were

arguing about whether or not Mr. Assange even had the right to publish such documents. Is was clearly

classified information, and the highly illegal means by which this information was accessed and

distributed by Pvt. Bradley Manning produced a great shroud of indefinite morality around the entire

subject. Why were these things being covered up by our government? Do those who have the power to

expose corruption within their own infrastructure also have a responsibility to do so, regardless of

previous agreements and conventions? And, perhaps most importantly, what responsibility does a

government have to be truthful to the citizens (whose tax dollars create and support the economic

allowance of a large-scale military involvement)? These questions do not have simple answers, but they

can be much better explained and further examined under this premise: raw information must be

declassified, regardless of legality, to create an open democracy if the government and those in

cohesion are not willing to be open by themselves. This might seem controversial, or even extreme, but

within these next paragraphs this idea will reveal itself to promote a longed-after transparency in

governmental affairs unlike anything the United States has ever seen.

Why do governments operate in secrecy? As hokey as it might seem, a conversation in the 1997

film, “Men in Black,” offers an opinion into these sorts of affairs when discussing why the government

doesn't just inform citizens of aliens living among humans.

“Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.”

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it... 500 years

ago people knew the Earth was flat, and 15 minutes ago you knew humans were alone on this planet...

imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”

 So, was Men in Black meant to be a metaphor for the way sensitive information is handled in

our government? It could certainly be seen this way. Information is being hidden from people because

of the potential for unrest and dissent, because those with the power to relinquish this information find

that a set of documents is easier to suppress than an entire organization or even worse, the public.

This does make sense. For example, how would the public react if told that a giant meteor was

on a crash course with Earth? There would anarchy on a level entirely unseen before. This, of course, is

an extreme example, but the point remains valid; the public, as a whole, simply can NOT effectively

deal with pieces of potentially damning information in a way that will allow a healthy democracy. In

other words, America MUST suffer the people who will believe whatever is told to them, on whatever

television channel in which they choose to hold credence. However, these people are not the problem.

This is why world governments and private corporations are so afraid of Julian Assange. His

method of information dispersal is to dump every piece out into a massive pile, thereby creating a well

of truth and facts that is very deep, and frankly, incredibly arduous to anyone who does not deal with

these kinds of things on a regular basis. Once these documents (or, realistically, anything) are online,

they are instantly liquid; there is no possible way to destroy them. This should worry those with the

most to lose. The saving grace for these organizations is that most people can't sit down and pore

through raw data being delivered in a matter-of-fact, non-entertaining way. Is this due to the massive

influx of infotainment seen in modern American society? Or, rather, does the neutering of raw

information on the medium through which most will see it actually facilitate a forum for openness and

transparency?

The U.S. Government has misinformed citizens in the past, and it will continue to do so in the future.

This is, at least on a small level, known even by the most socially passive of people. So, if our own

leaders will not disclose certain things, the next option would be to consult the media, who consistently
make claims consisting of an obligation for objective truth.

But how objective is any news station? Those who own media outlets are in a position of power

where they can decide what their customer will and will not learn. Any person in a position of power

must be politically motivated, because without those motivations, staying in power is nearly

impossible. This is where media fails the people the most. Adherence to either side of a political

spectrum only will allow so much truth, as can be evidenced by the lack of coherence between a duo

such as FOX and MSNBC. When no one channel within the country can provide factual, unbiased

information, and citizens cannot trust their government to be truthful with them, how does anybody

find the objective truth behind anything? How can public discourse even exist in such a flimsy context?

Does shouting misinformation at each other even count for discourse anymore?

Here, it will be helpful to step back into time for a historical example. Between the late 1300's

and early 1600's in France, there was a legislative assembly known as the Estates General. It existed for

the soul purpose of creating a system where the three largest demographics of French citizens (nobility,

clergy, and commoners) would have equality of voice. These demographics were known (respectively)

as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Estates. Though it had no legislative power itself, it was a great consultative tool

for the kings, and though not necessarily groundbreaking, it provided a perfect model for legislation

that would later be copied by the English Parliament.

In 1787, Edmund Burke coined the term 4th Estate. He asserted in a debate concerning

transparency in the Parliament that a 4th Estate of news media must exist, one that is not influenced by

any external force but only for the sake of unadulterated truth. The main purpose of the 4th Estate was

to ensure that if the other 3 Estates were not performing up to task or simply could not perform at all,

there would be still be one independent and unbiased Estate that could properly represent the other 3.

Since then, “4th Estate” has become a general term for news media or journalism.
 Returning to the present, there are 3 “Estates” that we can identify as assets of public discourse.

In 2011, the clergy isn't nearly as important as it was pre-1900's. In that respect, clergy could easily be

replaced by entertainment, such as sitcoms, magazines, websites, or reality shows. The modern form of

the commoners meeting and sharing information is social media, so it becomes an Estate as well. What

of nobility? In the case of a democracy, the nobility would be translated as the acting members of the

government. So our 3 Estates are established, but now there must be a 4th Estate, one that is unbiased

politically and needs no compensation. Unfortunately, in modern times, news media and journalism is

almost entirely politically motivated. That being the case, media as a whole can be equally split

between the government and entertainment. What of the 4th Estate then? Does it actually exist

anymore?

A 4th Estate does exist, but it is small. People know it exists, but a vast majority have chosen to

ignore it when they can. The 4th Estate, in 2011, is what might be known as espionage. People like

Julian Assange and the Wikileaks staff are the closest thing to a 4th Estate that exists today. Their only

motivation is to keep governments open. This is not at all to say that any of the 3 other forms of

discourse among the masses are to be ignored. That would be entirely socially irresponsible.

The beauty of information being compiled without outside interpretation is that the facts exist

simply as they are. As it was said earlier, most people are not equipped with an attention span great

enough to sort through all of the raw data that exists surrounding an event, but (and this is the best part)

that does not matter. In a society with a 4th Estate, the other 3 Estates would, ultimately, be held

accountable to the facts. They could try to twist the facts any way they want (as they currently do), but

facts are facts. The importance of having organizations to keep governments and media in check cannot

be stated enough, yet most people will not allow such a thing because the media and government are
telling them not to.

When everybody is held responsible, everybody is put on a fair playing field, and this effect is

very permeable. If a recorded truth exists and is published without bias or protection, the facts will

trickle down from the higher ups to the lowest levels. Public discourse, as a whole, could be effective

in a way that would begin to usher in a new kind of political system that prides itself on the objective

truths of any issue. Of course, there are still those in power that want objective truth buried at all costs.

Julian Assange now faces extradition from the U.K. to Sweden, pending on his appeal on the

12th of June of this year. If this happens, there is a very, very real possibility of him being extradited to

the United States. Here, he will be facing a court system that will be seeking the death penalty. Is this

what freedom of information has come to mean? Did the current administration not tout the lack of

transparency in government as a key issue that needed immediate addressing? If Mr. Assange is

executed, it will only show how far our society has fallen from any semblance of didacticism. There is

no such thing as an information terrorist who publishes unbiased government secrets on the premise of

creating a fair playing field. The true terrorists in this context are those who would control all of the

information if they could.

 Sources

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/06/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-date

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?
_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1290970819-rmkq4YTit+pPIT2PSOSstg

Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Vanity Fair, February 2011”Wikigate”

Schultz, Julianne (1998). Reviving the fourth estate. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
p. 49