We’ve all seen the effect that Wikileaks has had on the media world: its release of over 100,000 documents relating to the war in Afghanistan caused such a stink that you could smell the scandal above the phosphorous chemicals the Israelis were using indiscriminately on Palestinian civilians. It has been hailed as a trailblazer of true journalism, which genuinely holds governments to account. Especially those ones currently involved in occupation and warfare.
However, some have also criticised Wikileaks and its co-founder Julian Assange as running a hypocritical operation, which purports to be an organisation that ‘opens governments’, while running an operation as shady as the secret services they’re helping to expose. One such place is Gawker, which has got so irritated at the lack of information regarding who works for the site and who funds it that they’ve set up their own site, Wikileakileaks, which they hope will shed some light on the organisation.
‘In many ways Wikileaks really has opened things up, breaking big stories and providing a much-needed check on excessive government secrecy,’ said Gawker. ‘But championing transparency at all costs has lead to some controversial moves, too: For example, its leak of nearly 100,000 classified Afghanistan war documents may have put America's Afghan informants' lives at risk. And the organization has recently come under fire for releasing uncensored court documents from a lurid Belgian pedophile-serial killer case, one which contains dubious allegations against a notable politician and details about underage victims.
‘It's time to give Wikileaks the Wikileaks treatment—expose it to the same sort of radical transparency it advocates and see what turns up.’