Wikileaks is at the centre of an international storm of power brokers. Governments condemn, Paypal and Mastercard cut-off, hacktivists attack, courts subpoena, Twitter squawks, journalists blush, pundits pronounce and editors select. Or so it seems.
To my mind this highlights the relationship between information and power and the essential tension between opposing forces that is crucial for democracy: governments versus opposition versus media versus voters, prosecution and defence. To allow one faction to dominate is rarely in the public interest.
"Watergate" is a prime example, one of many, where journalists have taken on governments, but Wikileaks operates beyond democratic boundaries. It is shining a light on an international game of poker.
In a democracy, who decides what's in the public interest? Based on what information?
Posts
1 comment:
the word 'democracy' answers your question: it means 'the people decide.'
you do not live in a democracy, of any nature. sorry, they lied to you.
you have to read, and not from american books.
Post a Comment