Dealing with the WikiLeaks effect

The WikiLeaks have taken the global media by storm; catchy headlines and the once-secret documents have become the talk of the town - from boardrooms to living rooms, from TV studios to roadside cafes, WikiLeaks have caught the attention of most. Some believe it as if it's a divine revelation; others censure it, though not necessarily for all the right reasons.
Arguments in the latter camp mostly revolve around the notion that the leaks are fake, misreported, sensationalised or deliberately planted semi-truths by the puppet masters. The masses in Pakistan, who are probably the world's leading consumer of conspiracy theories, seem to have either complete faith on the leaks, or think of them as half-truths planted by the conspirers in the West to create political disharmony in the country, or both.
For the country's politicians, the leaks have become the best-loved tool to launch a tirade against their rivals; as soon as a politician claims something, others throw in a Wiki to traduce him publicly. The reaction of journalists and independent analysts is somewhat divided.
The 'Jeffersonian' lot, who see the media as a counterweight to governmental power, has been romanticised by the leaks. For these rebellious drivers of change, the leaks are an exciting source of hope that finally substantiates their inside scoops and thereby strengthens their case. Others are lamenting on the 'report first, validate and analyse later' attitude of their peers, while also criticising sensationalism and misreporting. The case in point being: the reaction following the 'Indians in Balochistan Wiki episode'.
Amidst all the hoo-ha, however, somewhere, somehow, the media and the critics are missing the point. Fine! Incorrect leaks, fake leaks, doctored reporting, and sensationalism are some of the associated evils. But the paramount question is whether the media, as a framer of contemporary reality, should be covering the leaks in the first place or not - even if they reveal the truth and nothing but the truth.
The last agreed-upon political structure gave the monopoly of intrusiveness to governments or to their legally appointed agencies - and that too mostly on a circumstantial basis. Leaving intrusiveness to private hands, by giving wide media coverage to the leaks, therefore, is not the best idea. Here is why. To the proponents of investigative journalism, Julian Assange may be an idol. But there is a difference between investigative journalism and wiki-leaking - the difference being the institutionalization of highly sophisticated and specialised investigative journalism.
Reportedly, a split group from WikiLeaks is busy working on a rival shop called OpenLeaks. If this trend catches up in today's world of technological and financial globalisation, things could become too hot to handle. Imagine a market of leaks; each shopkeeper specialising in his own niche. One WikiLeaks for private business corporations, one for governments; one for multilateral agencies, the other for NGOs; one for the defence sector, another for oil and gas, one each for MQM, PPP, and PMLN - each claiming to hold official documents and recordings. What a tumultuous life would that be?
Add to that, the threats of wiki-terrorism - for there might be many clandestine operators and terrorist financers happy to dole out billions to get sensitive information leaked and reported through the mass media.
National secrets would be at stake, diplomacy would cease to exist as we know it, negotiations like the NFC awards, mergers and acquisitions, trade and investment deals, etc would turn stalemate, mistrust would gain currency, and the world would move farther away from the shores of stability.
One may toss this view out of the window by characterising it as paranoia; after all, in retrospect, the fears of the CNN effect in the early days of the 24/7 electronic media seem to be an exaggeration, albeit the jury is still out on that. One may argue that as the world has gradually become accustomed to 24/7 coverage, the benefits of agenda acceleration - a key feature of the CNN effect - has outweighed its impediments. But the WikiLeak effect is different.
With shifting focus from one leak to another, the bombardment of a multitude of leaks round the clock will dilute the benefits of the 'agenda acceleration element' of the CNN effect, and thus, won't help drive the right agenda. In other words, the CNN effect garnished with the WikiLeak effect would mean non-stop coverage of chaos-producing content.
Agreed that freedom of speech is a boon for democracy. But to adopt a fundamentalist stance on that note is a rigid attitude - for in the post-Freudian world, we don't live in absolute democracy, but rather in a controlled democracy. And though controlled democracy may not be the best solution, it is the optimal solution - at least for now - which could be dismantled if the likes of WikiLeaks start making headlines every day.
A system where the wiki-leaking industry forms a monopolistic or oligopolistic structure would create obstacles in smooth running of the affairs of the state, and of the business and economy. The government as well as the business propaganda machines - the PR industry - would have to incur additional time, money and effort to keep rebutting the leaks or to overrun them by venturing onto massive media campaigns.
On the flipside, a perfect market wiki-leak industry would either leave the masses disillusioned or aggravate their disease of 'narcotic dysfunction' - a condition in which excessive exposure to an issue helps form an opinion about it, making people feel as if they have taken an action on the issue, when in fact they have not, or have done much less than desired.
So while the spirit of investigative journalism is commendable, and while it is understandable that in the post-financial crisis world the birth pangs of neo media have gathered pace, the likes of WikiLeaks isn't what we should desire in the volatile environment today
Giving full blown coverage to wikileakers will be akin to accepting their political existence as the fifth stateless arm of every state. Failure to consciously ignore or to make apocryphal tales out of these, therefore, could inspire a wave of leaks, the aftermath of which could be disastrous.
And if the notion sounds too draconian, then, at the least, the media should underreport such leaks, or otherwise validate and analyse them before reporting - until the time the thought leaders from the academia as well as from the industry form a well-deliberated consensus view about it.
(The writer is Research Editor at the daily Business Recorder. His views do not necessarily represent that of the newspaper) ([email protected])