Introduction
Free speech, the availability of information, and complete transparency in public media have been the goalposts toward which global society has been moving for a significant amount of time. Although not all of the described goals have been achieved globally, crucial improvements have been observed. However, the levels of transparency, especially in regard to the performance of global corporations, have been quite low for a while (Humprecht, 2020). Although the famous statement made by WikiLeaks concerning the role of media and press in the enhancement of transparency and promotion of openness may be clouded by the increase in the extent of media biases, overcoming them with the help of diversity.
The conflict between the proper representation of organizations’ actions in media and the unwillingness of global entities to disclose their actions to the broader audience has been taking place for quite some time, yet it was not until the WikiLeaks situation served as the breaking point for the reassessment of the transparency issue. The WikiLeaks scandal has demonstrated the importance of keeping transparency in publishing and encouraging open journalism in democratic society to reduce corruption. However, the statement in question appears to overlook the issue of control, namely, the means of verifying whether the sources that leak classified data are themselves worthy of public trust. Arguably, the described conflict can be addressed by introducing a specific issue from multiple perspectives, thus increasing the diversity of opinions and allowing the audience to embrace the entirety of the perspectives on the discussed situation. As a result, the threat of a biased representation of data will be minimized, whereas general audiences will gain access to the information that organizations and political figures may manipulate to shape people’s perception of their actions.
The observed trend toward obfuscating the activities of global organizations can be explained by the lack of ethical decision-making in the specified entities. Given the impact that the performance of large entities and authorities produces on both local and global levels, introducing the tools for control and supervision should be deemed necessary (Matheus & Janssen, 2020). For this reason, the emphasis on publishing and the role of social media, as well as the promotion of diversity in it as the means of reducing the extent of bias in its portrayal of key facts, needs to be promoted.
Publishing and Transparency
The connection between publishing freedom and transparency within the global economic and political setting does seem apparent at first glance. Moreover, when considering it in the context of the infamous WikiLeaks case, the significance of transparency increases exponentially. Namely, the WikiLeaks scandal has shown that a range of organizations previously believed to be abiding by the law have been abusing it or dismissing the rights of specific audiences in pursuit of financial gains (Landert and Miscione, 2017). Being non-profit, WikiLeaks could be deemed as unbiased since it is not affiliated with any other institution and, therefore, seems to produce the evidence that allows people to come to individual conclusions regarding a specific case or company exclusively on their own (Van Portfliet, 2019). Therefore, in its essence, WikiLeaks can be considered the proof that publishing allows increasing transparency and disclosing the information that society would have not discovered otherwise.
Thus, the connection between publishing and transparency could be considered confirmed in the case in point. For instance, the information that WikiLeaks published to prove that the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign lacked integrity was crucial in examining the problem of honesty in the relationships between elected officials and the people whose interests they have sworn to represent (Proferes and Summers, 2019). Thus, when considering the efforts that WikiLeaks members made in order to disclose the information that organization and official bodies attempted at silencing, one will have to admit that publishing increases the degree of transparency to a significant extent.
Transparency and Lesser Corruption
In the context of the Libertarian Theory, the idea that transparency will inevitably lead to lesser corruption rates is quite plausible. Indeed, according to the Libertarian Theory of the media, the increase in the extent of publishing freedom leads to a more honest capture of the key events and changes within a specific community (Martins et al., 2020). If considering the specified perspective of transparency and corruption as divorced from the key socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural factors, it does make sense to encourage greater transparency in media. Being able to observe organizations taking dishonest actions, public media will capture the specified decisions and represent them to the public.
However, given the flaws of the Libertarian Theory, the idea that transparency will lead to lesser corruption might seem as naïve. Specifically, the Libertarian Theory appears to place the overly strong emphasis on the supposed objectivity of individuals, presuming that journalism can only represent corruption when supported by the corporate mechanism and a system in which corruption is perpetuated. However, the Libertarian Theory omits the fact that individuals may also harbor biased perspectives and reflect them in their journalism (Martins et al., 2020). Therefore, applying the specified perspective to the notion of transparency in media, one may fail to acknowledge the probability of an individual representing a subjective opinion as well.
In turn, the Social Responsibility Theory offers a more substantiated opinion concerning the role that modern media can play in promoting transparency and representing facts in an objective way. Given the fact that the Social Responsibility Theory explains the actions of the press as being driven by a moral obligation, it can be used to support the idea that transparency is, in fact, the end goal of journalism and the main tool for promoting improved relationships between people and corporations. Namely, since the theory suggests that journalistic content must be used to cause the greater good, the Social Responsibility Theory could be seen as supportive of transparency in journalism as the path toward improving the well-being of the global community. Namely, with the rise of transparency, companies can be held accountable for the possible harm that they may inflict, which will allow improving the environment of the global community, thus implementing one of the main goals of media as they are represented in the Social Responsibility Theory.
Therefore, while the Libertarian Theory seems to contradict the idea that greater transparency will entail an increased amount of social good, the Social Responsibility Theory appears to confirm the significance of transparency in the global community. Applying the described disadvantage to the case of WikiLeaks, one will have to recognize the presence of bias within WikiLeaks itself. Namely, the fact that the founder of WikiLeaks was eventually proven to be conspiring with Chelsea Manning in order to access classified data could be seen as the confirmation of the fact that WikiLeaks itself could incorporate a certain extent of bias in its representation of events (Garnett and Hughes, 2019). The observed issue implies the same flaw as the one that the Libertarian Theory incorporates, namely, the presumption of impartiality in the agents that disclose classified data to the general audience.
Therefore, the case at hand demonstrates that the presence of idealistic impartiality as the founder of WikiLeaks views it and strives to implement it is practically unattainable. Since every instance of disclosing information will have to be performed by individuals, there will always be the presence of a personal lens through which data will be introduced to the audience. As a result, providing the public with raw, unfiltered information becomes barely possible since, even when offered in its initial form, the information will be inevitably placed in the context of the current sociopolitical situation (Brüggemann et al., 2020). Therefore, despite the fact that transparency as the means of reducing corruption is possible, it is crucial to monitor the veracity and credibility of data released into the public, as well as the frame of reference used to introduce it.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to concede that the WikiLeaks case has served to prove the importance of transparency as the vehicle for reducing the extent of corruption within organizations, including both business entities and governmental bodies. By making the classified information concerning dishonest actions of state authorities public, WikiLeaks leaders have shown that breaking the law needs to have consequences for every single citizen or entity, including those that have obtained substantial influence and power. In turn, the tangible presence of consequences for wrongdoing and lawbreaking is likely to motivate both regular citizens and organization leaders not to break the law. Therefore, transparency can be seen as a direct contributor to the reduced corruption rates.
Journalistic Media in Democratic Society
The assumption of journalistic media supporting democratic society begs the question of whether media can ever truly produce an honest and unbiased account of specific events without referencing a particular point of view. In fact, the question of whether a certain event can, in fact, be represented without any political point of reference remains open (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2018). Indeed, a range of scholars believe that true journalistic objectivity as the effort of portraying a certain event, phenomenon, or personality form an entirely unbiased point of view is virtually impossible.
However, some scholars still presume that retaining journalistic integrity while representing specific events can become an achievable objective. For example, in their account of the key requirements that are typically set for journalists when portraying a particular event, Martine and Maeyer (2019) insist that the described goal can be achieved by rectifying and reinforcing the relationships between the reader and the portrayed issue. Specifically, the authors posit that journalistic objectivity in itself requires “transforming a link in such a way that something gradually becomes a knowing subject while something else becomes a known object” (Martine and Maeyer, 2019, p. 3). In other words, the authors suggest that, to provide an objective statement concerning a specific issue, a journalist must introduce the observed situation in the way that will encourage the reader to examine the existing points of view before coming to a specific conclusion. Therefore, by offering the target audience to develop their own viewpoint as opposed to foisting a certain mode of thinking onto them, one can achieve objectivity in journalism.
The outlined representation of events in media can be regarded as the ultimate goal of journalism. Furthermore, the idea of introducing multiple points of reference into the description of a particular phenomenon in journalism in order to increase objectivity harkens back to the notion of a “healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media” mentioned in the quote under analysis (“What is Wikileaks?,” 2011). Nevertheless, to attain the described state of objectivity in journalism, every member of modern media must remain uncorrupted, which cannot be verified unless a tool for surveillance is introduced into the target setting. However, with a rigid body of control over social media, the very notion of journalistic freedom is negated, which is why attaining a complete state of unbiasedness is hardly a possibility.
Conclusion
Reducing the extent of corruption in modern society is essential for the well-being of average citizens and the community as a whole, and it can be achieved by making organizations and people holding significant power responsible for their actions. However, the possibility of the biased perspective of individuals and entities remains quite high. Therefore, the statement offered by the founder of WikiLeaks contains a paradox, outlining the flaws of the current control system and offering a different one instead without providing the tools for controlling its credibility and the integrity of the people that support it. Nevertheless, the outlined problem could be handled by incorporating a broad range of opinions into the representation of concealed information, thus letting the audience come to their own conclusions regarding the meaning of the provided data and the impact that it will make on their lives. Therefore, although the statement concerning the need to maintain transparency and hold powerful entities accountable for their actions is quite legitimate, further contemplations concerning the ways of maintaining honesty and integrity in the management of previously classified information will be needed.
References
Brüggemann, M., Lörcher, I., and Walter, S. (2020) ‘Post-normal science communication: exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism’, Journal of Science Communication, 19(3).
Garnett, P., and Hughes, S. M. (2019) ‘Obfuscated democracy? Chelsea Manning and the politics of knowledge curation’, Political Geography, 68, pp. 23-33.
Hanitzsch, T., and Vos, T. P. (2018) ‘Journalism beyond democracy: A new look into journalistic roles in political and everyday life’, Journalism, 19(2), pp. 146-164.
Humprecht, E. (2020) ‘How do they debunk “fake news”? A cross-national comparison of transparency in fact checks’, Digital Journalism, 8(3), pp. 310-327.
Landert, D. and Miscione, G. (2017) ‘Narrating the stories of leaked data: The changing role of journalists after Wikileaks and Snowden’, Discourse, Context & Media, 19, pp. 13-21.
Martine, T. and De Maeyer, J. (2019) ‘Networks of reference: Rethinking objectivity theory in journalism’, Communication Theory, 29(1), pp. 1-23.
Martins, O. P., Luke, A. I., Chima, O. A., Chinaza, U. and Williams, E. E. (2020) ‘Journalists perception of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in Nigeria: a study of journalists in imo state’, Media & Communication Currents, 4(2), pp. 108-128.
Matheus, R., and Janssen, M. (2020) ‘A systematic literature study to unravel transparency enabled by open government data: The window theory’, Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), pp. 503-534.
Proferes, N. and Summers, E. (2019). ‘Algorithms and agenda-setting in Wikileaks’# Podestaemails release’, Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), pp. 1630-1645.
Van Portfliet, M. (2019) ‘Wikileaks: Truth or power?’, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19(4), pp. 875-881.
What is Wikileaks? (2011).