In 2011, Julian Assange was awarded a Walkley, Australia’s highest award for

journalism. The award was made for “contribution to journalism”. Using one or more
examples, critically discuss both the contribution and challenges presented to
journalism by digital leaking in recent years.

Hackett and Zhao (1998) claimed that from the liberal perspective, Journalism should play a
vital role in upholding democracy by facilitating public discourse through the “promotion of
transparency and accountability of governments, corporations and public bodies” (Dobson and
Hunsinger 2016, p. 218). Schlosberg (2013) reasoned that conventional journalism remains
haphazard in fulfilling this civic role and is constantly suppressed by the “structures of the
contemporary nation-state in which it exists” (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218). Julian
Assange was awarded the Australian Walkley Awards in 2011 for his website WikiLeaks – ‘Most
Outstanding Contribution to Journalism’ (Kevin 2012, p. 35). As its editor-in-chief, Assange had
successfully emboldened the global public through his courageous, determined and
independent stance for freedom of speech and transparency (Kevin 2012, p. 35). The United
State’s (U.S) Justice Department stated that the main difficulty is establishing Wikileaks as a
media organisation due to the “unprecedented scale and nature” of its leaked documents.
Julian Assange affirmed that he had started WikiLeaks for journalists who were tired of
censoring themselves – who had primary source material in their possession but couldn’t
publish due to legal or space constraints (Rosner 2011, p. 1). Rosner (2011, p. 1) claimed, “the
current unique technological era has permitted proponents of transparent-democracy to
reveal government secrets without compromising their own security”. The following essay will
use the example of the “Collateral Murder” footage to critically analyse the opportunities and
challenges presented towards journalism after digital leaking rose to global prominence.

WikiLeaks claimed to have constructed a “new model of journalism that openly involves
sharing instead of competing against traditional media outlets” (WikiLeaks 2010). Launched in
2007 by founder Julian Assange, WikiLeaks was designated as an online whistleblowing
platform (Fuchs 2011, p. 49). Users are enabled to upload documents that will bring
misconduct, government and corporate crimes and transparency visible to the general public
while exposing “state-corporate secrecy”. Peter Bart (2015, p. 24) claimed that WikiLeaks
mirrors Uber’s[1] model and enabled “the uberization of investigative journalism”. In the Uber
world, “no one explicitly works for or are beholden to anyone” (Bart 2015, p. 24). Rather,
WikiLeaks relies on sophisticated technological software to facilitate and merge genuine
human interaction while protecting the identity of sources and ensuring the digitally leaked
materials linger online (Lynch 2017, p. 315). Journalism scholar Jay Rosen pronounced
WikiLeaks as “the world’s first stateless news organisation” when the official WikiLeaks Twitter
feed explicitly stated its location as “everywhere” (Meikle 2012, p. 54).

WikiLeaks rose to worldwide prominence after releasing the “Collateral Murder” video on
5th April 2010 (Rosner 2011, p. 1). The audio-visual piece showed an American Apache
helicopter attack from 2007 that ultimately resulted in the deaths of two Reuters journalists,
and over a dozen of civilians in a Baghdad street (Meikle 2012, p. 53; Rosner 2011, p.1). The
footage brought WikiLeaks into the public consciousness (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218).

“Collateral Murder” was recorded through a weapon’s targeting cross hairs of several men
strolling on the streets below (Meikle 2012, p. 53). The audio recording revealed that the
helicopter crew believed the men were armed with weapons. When one of the men holding a
large black object crouched behind a building, the crew hastily decides it as a weapon and
bombards everyone on the ground. When a black van pulls up and tries to help, the helicopter
once again opens fire and shoots everyone in sight (Meikle 2012, p. 53). There were two
children (not visible in the video) that were critically injured in the van. News sources such as
BBC, The New York Times, and The Guardianpicked up the video for global coverage.

Contrary to traditional media, WikiLeaks presented its ability “to undermine power relations
between governments, the media and the public by facilitating the exchange of potentially
sensitive and previously censored materials” (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 224). Hardy
(2010) reasoned that traditional media are economically and politically suppressed by
governments and corporations, which hinders their effectiveness at publicly holding these
institutional bodies accountable for their misconducts (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 225).
Meikle (2012, p. 54) explained that collaborating with prominent news establishments in the
publication of “Collateral Murder” would enable WikiLeaks “to draw on the agenda-setting
power, established viewers, and editorial and distribution resources of traditional news
organisations”. Therefore, propelling the classified materials to massive public attention that
spreads far beyond the WikiLeaks site. Moreover, Rosen (2011) explained that WikiLeaks’
unprecedented position as a “stateless news agency” had successfully evaded state censorship.
Its collaboration with traditional media partners further reiterated WikiLeaks “as an incidence
of “networked” journalism” (Lynch 2013, p. 317).

In its avowed battle for freedom of expression and speech, WikiLeaks is described as “a
purveyor of Internet journalism”, indicating the emergence of a progressive “age of
transparency” (Wahl-Jorgenson 2014, p. 2582). Taking account that WikiLeaks’ functions as
both a source and distributor of materials, the emergence of the networked fourth estate can
be seen to a certain extent, as a contribution to old media institutions (Benkler 2013). Benkler
(2013, p. 13-14) outlined that the networked fourth estate encompasses the following
components: “traditional mass media, mass media aggregation sites, professional-journalism-
focused non-profits, non-profit organisations with peer production, a party press culture, and
individuals undertaking a significantly prominent role in the media ecosystem” (Benkler 2013,
p. 13-14). Dunn (2013) reasoned that the progressive course of journalism as a networked
character “does not assume the evolution of media toward a new paradigm” (Brevini 2017, p.
4). Rather, WikiLeaks’ access to unfiltered, classified and “fresh and explosive” information
presents old journalism mediums with a lucrative resource, as it is capable of lessening the cost
of production and reproduction. For example, the precedent case of “networked
journalism”, Panama Papers [2] leak had brought 400 journalists from different countries
together for global coverage (Brevini 2017, p. 5). This presented that raw information obtained
by “networked journalism”, such as WikiLeaks appeals to the “credible, critical lens of
traditional investigative journalism” and thus, WikiLeaks and traditional media “is postulated
to result in a symbiotic relationship of mutual dependence” (Dunn 2013, cited in Brevini 2017,
p. 4).

Dobson and Hunsinger (2016, p. 226) stated that WikiLeaks’ disruptive counter power
transpires indirectly from its leaks. Rather, the precise, substantial impact is derived from its
capability to inform and potentially mobilize the public via digital media utilisation. Without
WikiLeaks’ challenging the official narrative, the government could continuously provide a
justification of the events that would have remained unchallenged[3]. Mass media, such as
Reuters were denied access through traditional approaches and failed to make public the
truthful account of the 12th July 2007 events in Baghdad (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 226).
The traditional role of operating as a watchdog was undermined by the US military’s attempt
to manipulate and mislead the narrative to communities. Nonetheless, WikiLeaks was able to
present an alternative narrative – “the fact that two Reuters staff were victims served as a
reminder to audiences about the function of news reporting in war”: there are two perspectives
of stories in any armed conflict, the former being one’s own country and the latter from the
opponent’s viewpoint (Fuchs 2011; Christensen 2014, p. 2597). Furthermore, WikiLeaks
operated as a transnational media that exist within a nation-state but outside its clutches,
simultaneous with an overarching distribution network that disseminates information while
constructing networks of freedom (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218, 225). By releasing
‘Collateral Murder’, WikiLeaks upheld the transparency of the events surrounding the incident.
WikiLeaks had uncovered political economy agenda by exposing “current day secret realities of
warfare” while operating free from oppressive forces and “indebted neither to states nor
markets” (Fuchs 2011, p. 59; Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 228).

Bart (2015, p. 24) explained that WikiLeaks introduced a novel method of reporting, an
“uberization of journalism” based upon public accessibility and interpretability of information,
at times even before professional journalists have access to it. Thus, giving a new set of actors
their power to interpret and disseminate news first-hand, at times even before news releases
(Bart 2015, p. 24). The old journalistic role that is underwritten by corporations and
governments are now tranquilized by the new form of news where “masses of the individual
public now work towards constructing the news, deciphering it and publicizing it, while
developing dominant narratives” (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 230). Through the digital
leaking of ‘Collateral Murder’, WikiLeaks blew the whistle on journalism’s democratic
regression; especially in the U.S. “The preposterousness of unilateral power, the disregard for
human life, an organised opposition to transparency, and the repression of democracy through
the elimination of citizen participation and knowledge” of the U.S government were publicly
disclosed (Christensen 2014, p. 2597). Christensen (2014, p. 2597) further maintained that it
took “an act of journalism” to bring tragedies such as ‘Collateral Murder’ to light. Journalistic
norms such as reporting truthfulness, accuracy, upholding transparency and the notion of
democracy are upheld and thus, exhibiting digital leaking as a contribution to journalism
(Christensen 2014, p. 2597).
Nevertheless, scholars have continued to argue the ways in which WikiLeaks challenges
journalism. As Bantz (1997, p. 133) asserted, the news is not the mere exhibition of raw
information, but rather, an industrial process where stories are articulated by crafting raw
evidence into “non-fiction drama”, giving unfiltered information its shape, frame, and
structure. Meikle (2012, p. 54) reasoned that for the most part, WikiLeaks does not generate
news. Instead, WikiLeaks operates as a source of raw material for traditional news enterprises
while ensuring that the unfiltered information is accessible to the public via its site (Meikle
2012, p. 54). Robert Stam once affirmed that news guarantees “tonight’s top stories, not
tonight’s top facts” (Stam 2000, p. 367). Moreover, the interpretations of the ‘Collateral
Murder’ video via editing (Image 1.0 above, p. 4) projected it as an activist documentary rather
than a news report (Meikle 2012, p. 54).

Coddington (2012, p. 383) further reasoned that WikiLeaks violates every component of
professional journalistic paradigms, primarily by defying institutional characterization with its
geological and organisational fluidity. Predominantly, WikiLeaks engagements with reporting
routines are limited-to-none, basically having no affiliation with the official sources. This is
contrary to conventional journalistic practice, as Schudson (1989) describes, “the story of
journalism on a daily basis rests upon the story of the interaction between professional
journalists and official sources” (Coddington 2012, p. 381). This symbiotic relationship ensures
a reciprocal dependence between parties, as respective sides offer exclusive access to
information that is valued by the other – reporters require continual “newsworthy” materials
while sources require publicity and influence (Coddington 2012, p. 381). WikiLeaks and
Assange have also conveyed unambiguous political goals through the ‘Collateral Murder’ leaks,
including government transparency and the revelation of misconduct by the U.S government
and huge corporations, therefore contradicting the journalism norm of objectivity (Cohen and
Stelter 2010). Keller, Times columnist, referred Assange as “a man who is vested in his own
agenda” and who was “openly contemptuous of the U.S government”, later also mentioning
the ‘Collateral Murder’ footage as “antiwar propaganda” (Coddington 2012, p. 388).
Christensen (2014, p. 2594) echoed the sentiment, stating that the very title of the footage was
slated as a digression from facts, and serving as a de facto antiwar editorial instead.
Although Times writer, Carr, recognised WikiLeaks’ engagement towards journalistic practices
(partnering up with mainstream media outlets as a source), he remains insistent that “it was
merely moving toward the journalistic paradigm specifically to tone down its advocacy” (Carr
2010).

WikiLeaks’ most problematic challenge towards journalism comes from the ethical
concerns from its online “crowd sourcing” – making an open call on the Internet for people to
help unravel a problem (Ottosen 2012, p. 840; Tiffen 2011, p. 2). Unfortunately, due to the
need for confidentiality and security to safeguard these sources and substantiate documents,
WikiLeaks eradicated the chances to function as an “open, collaborative online endeavour such
as the Wikipedia model” (Tiffen 2011, p. 2). Fowler (2011) mentioned “the WikiLeaks system
keeps the background of its sources anonymous even to Assange. The question on the
document’s legitimacy remains unanswered” (Tiffen 2011, p. 2). Therefore, when readers are
unable to discover the underlying motives for the leak of all these material, the ethicality of
WikiLeaks’ digital leaks will come into question (Ottosen 2012, p. 840). Furthermore, even
after news outlets gain access to these leaks, they continue to be unable to provide a concrete
explanation as to why the stories were leaked and ultimately, what was not leaked. Haugsgjerd
(2011) stated that prominent news outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian had
chosen to publish WikiLeaks’ materials before, insisting that the information provided has
been vetted and are legitimate (Ottosen 2012, p. 840). However, the ethical dilemma remains
and still poses as highly problematic.

This essay has discussed digital leaking by analysing WikiLeaks ‘Collateral Murder’ footage’s
impacts on journalism. Despite persistently deemed as controversial, Julian Assange’s platform
has offered scholars with an effective framework to examine central issues. These include the
traditional journalistic role of news dissemination in the era of networked journalism, the
Internet’s potential to facilitate activism and the challenges posed upon the journalism realm
with the emergence of online media. As Meikle (2012, 58) summarised, the release of
‘Collateral Murder’ had propelled WikiLeaks to the political stage, explicitly presenting the
evolution of the media from “the broadcast paradigm of the twentieth century into a
multifaceted, twenty-first century convergent media ecosystem” – new actors create news by
circulating never-before-seen database-driven material. Unlike traditional journalism outlets
that are economically and politically underwritten by governmental and corporate institutions,
WikiLeaks’ digital operations enable “masses of the individual public” to use their own
interpretability to form dominant narratives to be disseminated as news (Dobson and
Hunsinger 2016, p. 230). Therefore, in theory, upholding journalistic norms such as
transparency, truthfulness, accuracy, and democracy (Christensen 2014, p. 2597). On the other
hand, scholars also contended that WikiLeaks challenges the professional journalism elements
due to its operation of exposing raw information, which was argued as “not journalism” (Tiffen
2011; Ottosen 2012; Coddington 2012). From this perspective, WikiLeaks undermines
journalism ethical considerations, opposes the journalistic practice of having an institutional
characterization, but also contradicts journalistic objectivity by slanting the ‘Collateral Murder’
release for advocacy purposes. Despite so, news outlets collaboration with WikiLeaks
continues to straddle the lines between conventional journalistic functions and new
approaches. As Coddington (2012) stated, only time will tell if the traditional journalistic will
evolve and welcome new models of journalism with an open mind, or it will remain unbending
towards a wide range of innovative journalistic actors.

Reference List:
 Bart, P 2015, “How ideas turned into a part-time occupation: the tyranny of technology
has creative and cabbies singing the blues”, Variety, vol. 1, p. 24, Academic OneFile,
EBSCOhost.
 Bantz, C.R “News Organizations: Conflict as a Crafted Cultural Norm” in D Berkowitz,
(ed) 1997, Social Meanings of News, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, p. 123-137.
 Brevini, B 2017, “WikiLeaks: Between disclosure and whistle-blowing in digital
times”, Sociology Compass, Vol. 3, p. 1-11, Academic OneFile, Wiley Online Library.
 Benkler, Y 2013, “WikiLeaks and the Networked Fourth Estate” in B, Brevini, A, Hintz,
and P, McGurdy, (ed), Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the Future of Communications,
Journalism and Society, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
 Christensen, C 2014, “WikiLeaks and the Afterlife of Collateral Murder”, International
Journal of Communication, Vol. 8, p. 2593-2602, SwePub.
 Carr, D 2010, “WikiLeaks Taps Power of the Press”, The New York Times, 12 December,
viewed 25 October 2017,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13carr.html>.
 Cohen, N and Stelter, B 2010, “Iraq Video Brings Notice to a web site”, The New York
Times, 6 April, viewed 26 October 2017,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07wikileaks.html>.
 Coddington, M 2012, “Defending a Paradigm by Patrolling a Boundary: Two Global
Newspapers’ Approach to WikiLeaks”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 89, no. 3, p. 377-396, Academic OneFile, SAGE Publications.
 Dobson, K and Hunsinger, J 2016, “The political economy of WikiLeaks: Transparency
and accountability through digital and alternative media”, Interactions: Studies in
Communication & Culture, Vol. 7, no. 2, p. 217-233, Communication & Mass Media
Complete, EBSCOhost.
 Fuchs, C 2011, “WikiLeaks: power 2.0? Surveillance 2.0? Criticism 2.0? Alternative
media 2.0? A political-economic analysis”, Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, Vol.
5, no. 1, p. 1-17, Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost.
 Kevin, T 2011, “Julian Assange’s clear and present danger”, Eureka Street, Vol. 24, p. 35,
Informit literature & Culture, EBSCOhost.
 Lynch, L 2013, “Wikileaks After Megaleaks”, Digital Journalism, Vol. 1, no. 3, p. 314-334,
Supplemental Index, EBSCOhost.
 Meikle, G 2012, “Continuity and transformation in convergent news: the case of
WikiLeaks”, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, no. 144, p.
52-59, Literature Resource Centre, EBSCOhost.
 Ottosen, R, 2012, “WIKILEAKS: ETHICAL MINEFIELD OR A DEMOCRATIC
REVOLUTION IN JOURNALISM?”, Journalism Studies, vol. 13, no. 5/6, p. 836-846,
Communication & Mass Media Complete, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
 Rosner, J 2011, “Can WikiLeaks Save Journalism and Democracy?”, Global Media
Journal: Australian Edition, Vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1-6, Communication & Mass Media
Complete, EBSCOhost.
 Tiffen, R 2011, “WikiLeaks and mega-plumbing issues- unresolved dilemmas
revisited”, Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, Vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1-10, Communication
& Mass Media Complete, ABSCOhost.
 The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists 2016, Giant Leak of Offshore
Financial Records Exposes Global Array of Crime and Corruption, updated 3 April, viewed
28 October 2017, <.”>https://wikileaks.org/About.html>.