Andrejevic, M. (2014). WikiLeaks, surveillance, and transparency.

From Digital Culture & Society

Andrejevic, M. (2014). Wikileaks, surveillance and transparency. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2619-2630. [1]

Danielle Fenton

In the article, WikiLeaks, Surveillance, and Transparency, writer Mark Andrejevic investigates Wikileaks following its release of classified information about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wikileaks frontman, Julian Assange had become a notorious target of interest to America’s intelligence agencies for becoming a global whistleblower after exposing political and economical elites for their failures to provide adequate information to the populace about one of the most important decisions facing the nation (p.2624). In his paper, Andrejevic expresses how Wikileaks represented a challenge to established practice based on a tacit understanding between political, economic and media elites, and how it took the promise of a digital revolution too seriously, as Assange turned the tools of the informated elites back upon them (p.2619).

A key strength in Andrejevic’s article is his explanation of how Wikileaks transposed the issues of monitoring from the commercial to the political register, replacing the implied threat of consumer and citizen surveillance with the promise of accountability and radical transparency (p.2620). He expresses how Wikileaks serves as a global whistle-blower, taking the power away from editors, publishers, establishments and the media elite and how it is now the people who are taking control of the empowering character of digital media through such outlets. Andrejevic highlights Assange’s main goal of promising to administer accountability-at-a-distance enabled by the information age of the internet. Through the explanation of Wikileaks as a platform to confront established powers, “by challenging the normal channels of challenging power and revealing the truth,” readers can further understand Assange’s motives for publicizing private information regarding the activities of corporations and the state for political purposes (p.2620). The general breakdown of the article is constructed around three primary factors: disavowed knowledge, the failure of accountability, and transparency vs. surveillance. By segmenting the article by these three arguments, the writer defends and supports the Wikileaks exposé of the political and journalistic worlds for withholding imperative information from the nation.

Although Assange may be classified as an “information terrorist” to some, the writer defends his actions and explains that the Wikileaks incident forced individuals to confront their own disavowed knowledge of the war on Iraq. Andrejevic provides particular examples of this disavowed knowledge such as U.S. soldiers killing civilians, creating a regime that tortures prisoners, and their engagement in their covert warfare in the Yemen. By providing these examples, the author gives readers a chance to recognize such incidents and come to the realization that the release of thousands of classified diplomatic documents simply just give evidence to the Iraqi events that were common knowledge to citizens; Wikileaks, however, just made these revelations undeniable to everyone (p.2623).

Another strength in this article is the writer’s choice to point a finger at two political newspapers, The New York Times and the Washington Post and their failure of accountability in coverage during the lead-up to the invasion in Iraq. Andrejevic exposes the newspapers and their admissions of not providing adequate information to the populace about one of the most important decisions facing the nation; a decision that would claim the lives of tens of thousands of people and redefine international relations on a global scale (p.2624). These remarks by the author makes a compelling case which places Assange as the “hero” for exploiting the media and government for withholding information to its citizens; information about war that effects mankind and defends Assange against the accusations of Wikileaks being “Information terrorism.” Weaknesses

Despite Andrejevic’s persuasive paper coming to the defense of Wikileaks and its front-man Julian Assange, the writer has a few shortcomings in the article Wikileaks, Surveillance and Transparency. Although the social media site Facebook was mentioned at the beginning of the article as a form of comparison to Wikileaks, Andrejevic fails to continue to compare and contrast the two “new media” sites throughout the article. Even though the article is titled “Wikileaks, Surveillance and Transparency,” the detail in surveillance and transparency lacks in depth as it is only mentioned in the concluding paragraphs of this piece. Andrejevic concludes that Wikileaks would not exist in a world without secrecy, and that transparency is not the result of the perfection of surveillance; rather, it relies on upon gaps in the surveillance system (2627). Although the writer makes a clear argument that total surveillance threatens a culture of institutional transparency when he equates whistle-blowing with surveillance, his decision to speak of this topic in brief creates an absence of integrity in his claims.

In closing, the article provides a clear background of the Wikileaks investigation and provides readers with details surrounding Julian Assange’s release of classified information. Although often defending Assange, writer Mark Andrejevic clearly outlines the Wiki front-man’s motives for exposing confidential documentations to the public and helps to expose established powers for their failure of accountability through his writing.