On Wikileaks. Manning, Snowden. Leveson and "We The Media"

On Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden. Leveson and "We The Media"

AB21/09/13

Take each of the 4 areas in turn (Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden and Leveson), and answer the following questions in writing:

a) How does this area link to Gillmor's 'we media' theory? Is it an example of 'we media' or related in some other way?

Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden and Leveson are all linked to Gilmore's "We Media" theory for it had demonstrated the anticipated danger in the web, which Gilmore outlined in his book (written nearly a decade ago!). Gilmore warned us about:

-The danger of journalism becoming extremely liberal (chapter 3). Information being published to the public absent of permission. Which is what Wikileaks, Manning and Snowden had done.

- How in Gilmore's vision: newsmakers should embrace the new technology and use it to communicate with the outside world. But it should be used responsibly, for disseminating information can breed conflicts and ruin reputations. E.g Snowden leaking information about NSA had led to a conflict between the USA government, its citizens and organizations such as BASS (Buffalonians Against the Surveillance State). Furthermore, Julian Assange using Wikileaks to communicate with his anonymous sources to share top secret information to the world. Which links to the evolving nature of journalism, bloggers whom become source of information even for the journalist, "citizen journalists" (chapter 7)

-The controversy of Snowden, Manning, Wikileaks and the Leveson clearly is a proof of how online journalism is tremendously affecting politics.

- Wikileaks also shows how communication had enhanced greatly as audiences now have a voice and this website is another medium which helps them be heard. People voicing out their support towards Snowden and Manning and their opposition stance against NSA.

-In chapter 10 Gilmore talks about how online journalists should function in the same etiquette as other writers whom faces libel. And how it's possible that journalists will require a license one day. This prospect seems to become increasingly likely as clearly from all the leaking of information, there needs to be a clear line to be set which shouldn't be crossed as some would argue. (Chapter 10) Gilmore says that regulations will be made in chapter 11 for better or worse, which seems to be emerging.


b) Is there anything about this that could be described as 'democracy in action', made possible by new media/ the Internet?

Democracy by definition means a government ruled by the people- power to the people. This is what everyone essentially thought until the revelation about NSA. As a result, this idea of democracy had been subverted and is now constantly being put into question. This revelation is particularly devastating as it comes across that the people who are in power had been manipulating the country's citizen all along. This secrecy seems to have eliminated all the prospect of a "democracy in action". However, the organization Wikileaks as some would argue, is doing a good job fighting back this oppression and those who sees the whistleblowers as heroes; may assert that they're lead figures in this war for privacy and freedom.


c) Are there any related practices that could be described as 'counter-democratic' emerging/in evidence?

As information about NSA and the Military secrets are leaked. Big conglomerates and platforms could be accused as being "counter-democratic". It is these companies: Google, Twitter Etc. Who sold informatin aboutt he users of the web to NSA, absent of our knowledge and permission.



Take into account all the presentations, answer the following questions:

1) Do we have the freedom to express our opinions and access and exchange information in meaningful ways?

The web 2.0 has allowed us to have a voice, it has enabled us to express our opinions as seen on peoples blogs, profiles, youtube channels etc. Exchange of information had also been possible as written documents can now be via shared and sent in multiples efficiently. However, on the issue of freedom. We were given to opportunity to be active in the cyber world. But the price in exchange for this was out privacy.


2) Is our participation in public sphere discussions and debates meaningful, or does it feel mechanical and not actually empowering to you?

The discussions and the opinions put forward on the web, its content will remain meaningful because they're all subjective. These are people expressing themselves and thus how can it be "mechanical"? On the topic of empowering, as some people fight for their cause e.g anti-racism, feminism and right to equality etc. It's clear that the people are becoming more open minded about these subject and so it could be asserted that discussions and debates are empowering. They have helped to further the knowledge and understanding of others.


3) Is it harder for the public to be deceived or kept in a state of ignorance in terms of government malpractice than prior to the Internet?

Yes. Though the citizens of today seems inactive in the traditional sense of politics, it is because everyones activity is happening over the web. Communication oversees had become possible and so opinions from people outside the issue your country may be facing, is able to get their point of view across. It could be argued that it's this point of view that develops an individuals understanding of the situation. Deception becomes unlikely as people communicate, we discuss what we see and these compilation of insights stops and form of corruption or manipulation. There is no room to hide for the government's malpractice as there are information being leaked about their actions. As proven by the issue regarding Snowden and Manning.