Early in the week, Wikileaks started to release cables from American Embassies and consulates to the public. Much embarrassment and hilarity ensued as some of the cables were released. And then it got serious.

On the one hand, I imagine all the leaked cables do is validate many assumptions the public and diplomats of other countries have had for many years. On the other it further teases a rather large part of the global economy and political establishment in ways they were always bound to react to. And it’s not as if WikiLeaks isn’t used to the odd DDoS attack or 100.

So while I’m not surprised by the reactions of some in the Media, Politicians and errant bloggers, I’m surprised Wikileaks continue to take such a public road. Attracting attention to the information they are releasing is obviously the key outcome for them, but I assumed the partnerships made during the Collateral Murder and recent “War Diary” releases would have had them return, at least for some time, to the under the radar trickle they appeared to practice up until 2009.

On its ‘About’ page, Wikileaks calls itself a Media organisation claiming:

(the) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers

You might think therefore they would have some level of protection under law as other Media Organisations have. Many have noted the lack of what might normally be considered “Journalism” – i.e. the curation of discovered content and stories – in how WikiLeaks appear to operate. How you choose to release your stories should be beside the point.

In an age when much of the mainstream media is connected to large transnational media organisations and tied to governments by means of licensing of multi-media operations such as TV and Radio, is it possible the leaks have always been there, but the media has shyed away from them?

Is it logical to then ask if the advent of Wikileaks has encouraged leaks which would have otherwise never taken place? Or is it a required substitution for the Moral ambivalence of much of Mainstream Media. For example would the Watergate cover-up have been revealed today by the Washington Post or by WikiLeaks?

In the modern internet age, it is claimed GenY and others who participate in “Social Media” and other online spaces expect transparency from all the communicate with. I’m unsure if that is entirely true. While I don’t agree with much of this article, I tend to side with the argument for “Translucency”. I’m a big fan of transparency when required, but understand that some things are Personal and Private. The “need to know” argument can be a very powerful one.

Need to know, however has become “never know” in the eyes of many Governments and large Corporations, but as Mark Pesce points out in his article “The Ends of Information“

If a state wants the benefits of digital culture – its instantaneity and ubiquity – it must now accept that anything it does can be copied and shared.

and organisations like WikiLeaks are there to ensure what can be copied is shared.