As a former Army officer, I'm predisposed to view the release of secret documents during wartime as a traitorous crime. Like Stephen Colbert in this excellent dissection, I thought the WikiLeaks publicity campaign around the film 'Collateral Murder' was despicable for its rash editorialising and lack of contextual appreciation.
The cablegate leaks have softened my position because, as a diplomacy outsider, I am fascinated by the voyeurism of it all. I can see the value in knowing the duplicity of Kevin Rudd's views on Afghanistan. It's reassuring to know that the US Embassy shares the concerns I have about the fanciful budgeting behind the 2009 Defence White Paper.
Last week we asked the Lowy Institute's Twitter followers to make sense of WikiLeaks: Is Julian Assange a #wikihero or #wikivillain? Eighty percent of responses were in Julian Assange's favour.
Some of the Twitter posts were revealing. @thewinchesterau commented that Assange was 'Exposing corruption & hidden agendas, shining lights in areas of the world where it's desperately needed'. @aireys also commented on this theme: 'The world has now changed. US is confused, pollies exposed and the people unite against all the corruption and lies. Well done JA.' @alecthegeek phrased it as a simple dichotomy: 'What sort of society will we bequeath to future? Truly open & participatory; or closed &controlled by gov and corp?'.
What struck me is how few people are likely to be swayed from their initial instinctive response on WikiLeaks. The crux of the issue seems to be how you feel about government – if you feel positively about the work governments do, then you hate WikiLeaks. If you have concerns about the way governments operate, then WikiLeaks is the salve to a wounded trust.
Photo by Flickr user Natasha Friis Saxberg.
