A woman popped up on the projector screen and I looked around the room for a good 30 seconds trying to figure out where she was. It was only until 30 embarrassing seconds later that I realized this was a live broadcast and that the presenter was not actually present.
All that aside, I really enjoyed the introduction of the topic, the forum and Mr. Crowley. The topic introduction did a great job of summarizing the events that occurred and explaining (which was helpful for those semi-ignorant ones like me) and the forum explanation cleared up the confusion about where the heck that woman was and why she wasn't actually in our classroom. Her detailed introduction of Mr. Crowley was essential for understanding where he was coming from and why his opinion mattered.
One of the main things Mr. Crowley explained was that there were three main consequences from the WikiLeaks. First, there was a potential impact on critical relationships between the US and other countries. These leaks undermined the trusts others had in the US. The second, and most fully realized, potential consequence was the risk of the lives and livelihoods of people. Mr. Crowley explained that physical harm has occurred as a result of these leaks. Finally, the third consequence is the impact on future net growth.
While Crowley officially condemned the publication of these documents, he explained that the most important problem was what was actually published. Just referencing a place or date that a conversation occurred, rather than actually naming someone, is enough to put lives in jeopardy. Here is a pretty comical representation of the ability for WikiLeaks to expose people that would much rather not be exposed.
While this cartoon uses a light tone, the undermining issue is that the heroes of our society, be it an Afghan citizen or a member of the CIA, can be exposed so easily through WikiLeaks.
Crowley does not aim to limit the freedom of the press, but rather wants them to be responsible journalists that listen to the government on issues concerning highly classified topics. I think he did a good job of explaining that the press surely does not have to listen to the government--they are under no contractual agreement, they will face no sanction-- but they ought to out of good judgement for the safety of citizens around the globe.
I think Mr. Crowley was the perfect person to speak on such a topic. While he may not be entirely neutral (based on his military experience and work for the government), he was extremely knowledgeable of the topic and able to portray his opinions in a way that was easy to understand.
When it comes to mishandling a delicate international situation, I think how the US and other nations responded to the WikiLeaks debacle of last year is a perfect example. What started off as an embarrassing situation when a few diplomatic cables were leaked became a full on media spectacle as the head of WikiLeaks Julian Assange was turned into a sort of martyr figure for those in support of government transparency, while millions of people who would have otherwise never heard about the leak were filled in through their news source of choice.
ReplyDeleteIf governments want to keep sensitive information that is leaked from becoming widely spread, they need to take some cues from the PR industry. What the US had was a bad press situation. With proper handling, it could have been spun in a way to put the US in a more favorable light, while mitigating the effects of the leak. Instead, they ham-fistedly attempted to shut down the site, detain those involved and try to claim that some of the leaks were fabrications to discredit WikiLeaks.
I would agree with Crowley that the information that was leaked was potentially an issue of national security, particularly the documents that related to strikes in Afghanistan. If the government had been more forgiving about the information that was merely embarrassing (the cables), WikiLeaks may have been more cooperative about the information that put lives at risk.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe government will make up any excuse to the public for their own personal interest. They are saying they want to shut down the site, because it could POSSIBLY ruin relationships with other countries. There could be some truth behind this. Anyone with common sense behind this issue knows the real reasons for the shutdown. It would be a big explosion of exposure of our government to the rest of the world and how it really works. We are about the only country that just starts wars for our own personal resources. The rest of the world knows this and Wiki Leaks was just providing evidence behind it. This is ONE of the main reasons it was called to be shut down.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of powerful financial organizations such as Bank of America that are with the government to see that the Wiki Leaks organization is finished. Even if Wiki Leaks wanted to sue that would just be completely pointless. The government runs the law system also so it like the organization is hopeless. The only people that can help save this organization are everyday people such as us that will provide donations. This goes back to the whole Think Tank concept.
Think Tanks were affiliated with the government in a big way, but they were funded by corporations and people that are billionaires and millionaires in this country. You never knew who exactly was behind these Think Tanks and that why I didn’t support them all the way. Wiki Leaks is here for the people all around the world, helping to bring answers to questions that the government would refuse to.