Wikileaks: Investigative Journalism or “Irresponsible” Journalism?

A newspaper called Wikileaks is at the center of controversy today as it will release 92,000 "secret" documents on the Afghanistan war. The White House is saying the release of information is irresponsible and is a threat to security of our forces in the region. "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," National Security Adviser James Jones said in a White House statement (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-25/u-s-denounces-publication-of-classified-documents-on-war-in-afghanistan.html). Wikileaks provided the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel access to these documents several weeks ago. All three news outlets are stating that the documents bring to light certain elements of the 9-year war but "no smoking gun" exists.

In light of last week's knee jerk reaction by the White House and the NAACP and the fact that wiki is part of this groups name begs the question of the legitimacy of their documents or how they obtained them. To Wikileaks credit they did allow other organizations, see above, to vet the information. The article "CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something's Going to Have to be done'" from newsbusters.org highlighted the suggestion that a "gatekeeper" is required on the internet because bloggers can post items anonymously without any accountability. Everyone knows, or at least should know, that anyone can post anything in the blogosphere and one should do their due diligence to vet the information before taking it as gospel. Perhaps if organizations like CNN did their journalistic job and got back to investigative reporting the deceptions of the blogosphere would never see the light of day.

Then again, without the internet press, like Wikileaks, would the truth about the Afghanistan War come to light? Don't we, as readers of things on internet, need to ensure the information we are reading is accurate? Or are we suppose to once again turn to the government to tell us which information is true and which are not? I fear a society that relies so heavily on the government to vet the information.

Matthews Marginalized West Point Cadet’s after Obama’s Speech

After President Obama spoke to United States Troops at West Point, Chris Matthews, MSNBC's host of the Chris Matthews show, said afterwards about the cadets in attendance, "It seems like in this case there isn't a lot of excitement. I watched those cadets they were young kids, men and women, who are committed to serving their country professionally it must be said as officers. I didn't see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that President chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp to make his case today." Did I miss something? Tell me why, Mr. Matthews, a group of people who have been told there are murders by the Democrat party and seen their General in the Afghan arena treated like a leper during the discussions.

Those cadets that lacked the "excitement" and held "resentment or skepticism" of the plan being laid out by President Obama may be justified after the manner Obama's administration has treated the military community during the Presidential campaign and after coming into office. If I were a cadet in the crowd my ethusiasm would be diminished too as my Commander-in-Chief telegraphed the plan of battle. Matthews attempted damage control later in the night on his show by saying, "I used the wrong words and worst than that I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize." The mistake was referencing our cadets at West Point the "enemy camp" for President Obama for which your apology rings hollow.

Matthews went onto say, "As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image." The one thing Matthews has been successful at is prove that a) he is not a news source, b) lacks original thought, and c) lost his tingling feeling. Instead of focusing his assessment on the content of Obama's speech, Matthews focused on the reaction by the crowd. Why? Perhaps the crowd's reaction was accurate reflection of the plan being laid out.

We all agree that an open-ended war is not an answer nor will it reverse the economic trend being experienced. At the same time, what fool gets before a national audience and tells the world the battle plan? Before anyone gets to crazy, I understand that he did not expose the tactical plan. Rather he telegraphed to the Taliban and other insurgeants that after to 30,000 troops hit the ground you will have just 18 short months to hunker down until we are gone. Then after that, the country is yours. The cadets in the room were not alone in their disappointment with President Obama, the international community is not gushing over the revealing of the plan either.

"Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric – and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught," wrote Gabor Steingart in his piece "Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic" published in Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html#ref=nlint). United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, "I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy. Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign" (http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE5B133L20091202). Sir Jock Stirrup, UK's Chief of the Defence Staff, said, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with having targets and milestones against which we can measure progress and against which to be frank we can force the pace" (www.telegraph.co.uk). But Sir Stirrup also warned "that a British withdrawal in earnest could not begin until 2014" (www.telegraph.co.uk).

If our most powerful ally is looking for 2014 and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is saying July 2011 – who is right? Also, perhaps the reason why the cadets and senior officers at West Point held their perceived point of view is due to their military training and understanding of the situation. Maybe the media and pundits, like Chris Matthews, should remove their Obama-colored glasses and see the speech and plan from the military perspective.