Leaky Internet shows value of traditional press

So, I'm wondering now about all the social nihilists out there who've been reveling in what they see as the demise of the “lame-stream” media. And my question for them is this: In light of all the rhetoric about the WikiLeaks disclosures, how do you like indiscriminate political blather now?

There is much to be said for the way the blogosphere has expanded the market for ideas about politics and society. (I mean, how else would we have gotten great social literature like The Julie/Julia Project and (Bleep) My Dad Says?) But there's also something to be said for editing, for thoughtful reflection about what one publishes and for the attempt, however foredoomed to failure, at objectivity.

Actually, I guess purists would have to admit that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can lay claim to some objectivity, too, at least in his presentation. He's not necessarily suggesting whether the tens of thousands of government secrets he is publishing are good or bad. He's just putting them out there for people to do with as they please.

Supposedly, he does have some sort of political/social agenda having to do with an informed electorate, and I'll have a lot more respect for his objectivity and his journalistic intent when he starts publishing secrets from inside China or al-Qaida. But in the immediate instance, I'm more interested in the way his unrestrained data dumping fits with the point of view that the mainstream media's more selective approach to journalism is quaintly outdated.

Indeed, Assange's methods demonstrate the critical need for agencies that will provide a breadth of analysis and context for the information pouring like a thunderstorm into the public arena.

Assange has been compared to and won some support from Daniel Ellsberg, whose release to The Washington Post of the secret Pentagon Papers opened America's eyes to government lies about the Vietnam War. But it's important to note that the Pentagon Papers were the subject of intensive careful vetting before they were published, and when they were published, they were accompanied by stories and analysis that advanced the debate about their message and value.

WikiLeaks' releases appear to be intended for no other purpose than the wanton display of information. From a reader's perspective, that may be an even more dangerous practice than sole reliance on the “facts” advanced by subjective blogs that exist to promote a particular point of view.

Make no mistake, all of these avenues of information have value, and, even if they didn't, a case could be made that they can't be stopped. The genie exited this bottle by way of the Internet, and he won't be put back in. Jailing Julian Assange or any other Web journalist just isn't going to stop some people from indiscriminately posting sensitive information according to whatever whim or misguided purpose that may come to their mind.

But readers need to know better than to accept such postings and releases at face value. The local newspaper and its associated website may not be perfect when it comes to presenting information objectively, but they do represent at least the attempt to understand the meaning of the information they publish and to present information in a clear, useful context.

That's a function, it seems to me, that contrary to being archaic is actually needed now more than ever.

Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald.