Secrecy News last month provided this fairly negative take on Wikileaks as an irresponsible organization with self-promotion tendencies. Given the critic's organization is in place to promote openness, the essay not surprisingly resulted in some negative responses. And, I think it was a too heavy-handed attempt (one shared by some journalists who have talked about the organization, if not in so negative of a light) for balance. Are they to blame that their leaks were not taken as seriously as others? Yes, the "collateral murder" label on that now infamous video was a bad piece of misguided commentary.
The MSM has its share of excesses all the same, including involving fairly unimportant individuals and revelations that needlessly violate privacy. The criticism is bit too much like this one by television analysts against "anonymous bloggers," which btw shows that similar complaints can be made on the Internet as a whole. The material could and would be leaked in various ways; Wikileaks just provides a platform. And, it does limit itself, such as only releasing lower level "secret" documents, not truly top secret stuff (as noted by the founder in press conference aired on C-SPAN) and redacting names (as noted by a guest on Rachel Maddow, well guest hosted by Chris Hayes) last night.
The increase of the use of "secrecy" (both the label and the selective secrecy of information that still is leaked when deemed fit, including by semi-official sanction) recalls Justice Stewart's opinion in the Pentagon Papers case. He probably relied to much on the good graces of the executive, but his words are ever more true:
I should suppose that moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained.
Like prosecutorial discretion, the reality of leaks provide a safeguard to excessive secrecy and the resulting dangers. As Justice Douglas noted in the same case:
Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions, there should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate.
What was the net result from the release of the papers? It is hard to provide a concrete answer, I think, it more of a symbolic move along with one with clear but somewhat inchoate consequences. Same here. There is lots of coverage on the matter as touched upon above (see also, Democracy Now!) that provides the breadth of the material covered and the possible consequences. But, two important functions are to provide a more concrete sense of what is going on (use of certain incidents, events and so forth as compared to general themes) and to serve as a continuing reminder of them. The people "in the know" might be aware, but how it is covered is important. It is like any problem: sometimes, we can in effect accept it as a given, something we rather not really think about.
The resources provided, even if it is unclear how many people will wade into them, is therefore important. As to the danger of unregulated leaks, that is a concern, but it is one that will result in any case in the modern landscape. And, to the degree Wikileaks wants to be taken seriously -- and this seems to be true -- as someone to be taken seriously, some "due diligence" will be done. If leaks will occur, some sort of medium -- even one rather free form -- is likely better than nothing.
And, lest we forget, the recent document drop was made to major publications, who can choose what to do with them. As with the original Pentagon Papers, their actions are important though. Daniel Ellsberg tried to get the attention of Congress before releasing things to the media. These days, there is a question if the media is doing their "due diligence."