 |
         
|
The dissonance in the networks' coverage derives from the contrast between reporters' measured and informative coverage of the content of the cables that WikiLeaks released and the alarmist attitude about the motives and the impact for the release itself. Pentagon correspondents, whose journalistic role is to cover national security, were most exercised about the existence of a stateless organization that had no stake in the concept.
NBC's Jim Miklaszewski warned darkly about the damage WikiLeaks could do "to national security and the lives of American service members," even before any information had been released, describing the looming data dump's contents as "top secret" even though it turned out not to be so highly classified. CBS' David Martin accused WikiLeaks of doing Osama bin Laden's homework for him by publishing a file of global locations "vital to national security and public health." They included mines and laboratories, pipelines and dams--however it is hard to make the case that the existence of hydroelectric projects in Quebec is a secret of state.
WikiLeaks was accused of jeopardizing the safety of the sources that diplomats consulted to compile their cables. Assange told ABC's Sciutto that he had contacted the State Department to ask for a list of such vulnerable people so that their names could be redacted: "They refused to assist." In all the coverage so far, only CBS' Martin mentioned an example of such jeopardy: an unnamed onetime Iranian fencing champion.
It was more the concept that the nation's secrets could be disseminated that was disturbing rather than the secrets themselves. ABC anchor Diane Sawyer introduced us to the leaks with this question: "What in them is dangerous for the United States and what is merely embarrassing?" It apparently did not occur to her to wonder whether any of the content was interesting or informative, an omission that is abnormal for a journalist. NBC anchor Brian Williams predicted that the leak "will no doubt hurt the ability of the United States to do business around the world," although he did not explain his certainty. "Every day there is new diplomatic damage done," he declared later, without offering specifics.
When Attorney General Eric Holder found "a predicate for us to believe that crimes have been committed here," he failed to impress NBC's Pete Williams: "When it comes to the Website there is no federal law that explicitly covers something like this." From the White House, CBS' Reid heard press secretary Robert Gibbs call the Website criminal, "finding WikiLeaks guilty before charges have even been filed." It was not clear what laws had been broken and the networks continued to cite the leaks as legitimate sources in their reporting. It was difficult to reconcile outrage and utility, security and transparency, secrecy and publicity, simultaneously.
You must be logged in to this website to leave a comment. Please click here to log in so you can participate in the discussion.
