The ends and means of WikiLeaks

I got a sneak preview of Ulvy’s Ethics presentation during our shared Media Management class last night. During a brief intermission, she ran the basic premise by me: Is it right to use information obtained illegally from another source?

The source, in this particular case, was the now infamous WikiLeaks, which just recently released a batch of secret cables that paint the U.S. in a rather negative light. I won’t dive into Ulvy’s take—I’ll leave that to her. But her question did make me think.

We’ve discussed previously that, as a general rule, it’s not ethical to obtain information through illegal action. Hidden cameras, breaking-and-entering—these are areas best avoided for any upstanding journalist. The ends rarely justify the means here, although their might exist extreme examples in which the truth is so compelling than it needs to be uncovered through relatively “shady” practices.

But what if someone else is doing the dirty work for you? Is it ethically right then? As I’ve done throughout most of the semester, I’ve tried to frame the debate using Kidder’s notion of right-versus-right. The first “right,” in this case, is easy:Right No. 1: It is right to inform readers.

But what is the clashing value at play here? I don’t think we could justify: It is right to get said information through any means necessary. As I’ve described above, that can lead us down a slippery slope of illegal and immoral action.

Upon careful review, I started to think about the issue from a different perspective. The dilemma at play here seems to be a matter of editorial judgment—of discretion. So instead of framing this debate as a discussion of should you use the WikiLeaks cables, perhaps it’s better to frame it from the counter perspective. Thus we get our second right:

Right No. 2: It is right to withhold some information from readers.

By choosing not to run the leaked information from WikiLeaks—whatever your motives or ethical justification—you’re essentially making a judgment call to withhold news from your audience. I’m not one to throw editorial discretion out the window. A good journalist makes for a good gatekeeper; they funnel only the most relevant and important information to readers. But if you’re withholding that info from readers for mere ethical purposes, are you doing them a disservice?

I’m curious to see what Ulvy has to say on the topic later this evening. It’s an interesting topic that journalists the world over are dealing with right now. It seems most of the major news outlets have chosen the former route, releasing the newsworthy tidbits from the secret cables as they see fit. But that doesn’t make their behavior right.