Wikileaks, Radialeaks, And Journalism

Before discussing Wikileaks, let's be clear about one thing - our The State spies on us. Here is a news report on the central State's admission that 6000 phones and 600 email IDs are being "intercepted." These are authorised by the central State's home secretary - and the report says he religiously spends 30 minutes every day signing such authorisations, so the list is growing daily. The report adds that every state of this (supposed) federation does the same.

Yet, chaos, confusion and corruption rule the land. Because you cannot govern with "information" alone. You also need sound "knowledge" - which is theoretical and philosophical. It is here that our socialists have failed, most miserably. This is "knowledge failure."

This is also true of the USSA. The CIA has dossiers on anyone and everyone - but "intelligence" on WMDs in Iraq was wrong. The USSA is getting screwed in both Iraq as well as Afghanistan - and, since the US dollar is heading for collapse, this is further proof of the fact that government must be based on sound theoretical principles. If these are faulty, no "intelligence" - which is mere "information" - can help.

Let us now turn to Wikileaks. I think it is a very good thing that some brave private citizens are spying on The State - particularly the US State. This is precisely the sort of Spy vs. Spy we all needed. In my book, no State should possess deep, dark secrets - and all private people should be possessed of their privacy. Politics and government must be open and transparent. We must proceed in this direction. I hope Julian Assange and Wikileaks accomplish this. May they inspire many more to be like them. In India, Tehelka first made waves with its "sting operations" on politicians. Such efforts need to be multiplied.

Let us not forget that House of Commons debates were once kept secret. It was the great John Wilkes who made their publication mandatory (1771).

The matter of the Niira Radia tapes is somewhat different - for in this case the conversations were recorded and leaked by the Income Tax Department. However, the net result - a shake up in journalism and an expose of corporate lobbying - are entirely welcome. Ratan Tata has asked for Supreme Court intervention to ensure that recordings of his conversations with his lobbyist are not published on the grounds of "privacy" - but if these conversations pertain to "public affairs" like the appointment of a minister, I think they ought to be made public.

As far as the effect of the Radia tapes on Indian journalism is concerned, I maintain that we need more television channels, more radio stations, more newspapers, magazines and blogs. We need more freedom of the press - so that Competition sorts out the bad apples from the good. It is worrying that many regional language TV channels are party organs. Licensing of TV and radio must end.

NDTV (and the Barkha Dutt show) certainly need competition. In all this political hullabaloo her weekly show discussed reality television last Sunday, and corporate philanthropy last night, thereby ignoring real, "hot" issues, deliberately. I also watched a programme in which her ethics were questioned by other senior journalists - and many of them turned out to be closely associated with the government and its politics. Dilip Padgaonkar is an official "interlocutor" on Kashmir; Sanjay Baru was Chacha Manmohan's press advisor; Swapan Dasgupta is a BJP man. This is proof that there is enough space for truly independent journalism.

So let us be inspired by Julian Assange and Wikipedia. That's the way to go.

Finally, let me share two items I found on LewRockwell.com concerning Wikileaks:

First, a report in the Guardian that covers leaked cables which indicate that both the CIA as well as the US diplomatic corps have been pressurising foreign governments to toe the Washington line on climate change.

Second, a very pertinent quote from Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty:

In some areas, a radical distinction between private persons and government officials is acknowledged in existing law and opinion. Thus, a private individual’s ‘right to privacy’ or right to keep silent does not and should not apply to government officials, whose records and operations should be open to public knowledge and evaluation. There are two democratic arguments for denying the right to privacy to government officials, which, while not strictly libertarian, are valuable as far as they go: namely (1) that in a democracy, the public can only decide on public issues and vote for public officials if they have complete knowledge of government operations; and (2) that since the taxpayers pay the bill for government, they should have the right to know what government is doing. The libertarian argument would add that, since government is an aggressor organization against the rights and persons of its citizens, then full disclosure of its operations is at least one right that its subjects might wrest from the State, and which they may be able to use to resist or whittle down State power.

Do read The Ethics of Liberty. It is a book every citizen who values Liberty should read, and I especially recommend it to students of Law. You can download a free PDF here.