I am trying to figure out what the Wikileaks stand for:
- W hat (an)
- I rony!
- K nowing (from)
- I nside…
- L ying (to)
- E veryone…
- A ttention (please):
- K nowledge (for)
- S ale!!!!
I just read an interesting article by Frank Furedi in which he argues that the revelations refer more to voyeurism rather than journalism. He states among others:
“…The only purpose of the leaks is to embarrass and to sow confusion. Superficially, the claim that the public has ‘a right to know’ sounds like an affirmation of the democratic ethos. But what does ‘the right to know’ mean? There is nothing enlightened or democratic about exposing informal deliberations between officials to public scrutiny. Most diplomatic exchanges involve the expression of provisional or incomplete opinions, rather than hard facts. The public does not have an intrinsic right to know how people find and assess and interpret information...”
What is the ‘right to know’? To know what? The ‘known’ or the ‘unknown’?. And what can make a difference? To know or to act on the basis of the knowledge? Knowledge requires action, otherwise it becomes sterilised, boring, pointless….But, in the political world, ‘discovering’ does not always mean ‘knowing’ what is going on, and ‘knowing’ does not necessarily lead to deliberation and reasoned debate.
Re Wikileaks, knowledge becomes dramatic exactly because it reaffirms the already existing assumption….the ‘possible’, the ‘might be’. It is not so dramatic after all, it just feeds our deep interest to find out how a well dressed man/woman looks when naked…(but we have already used our imagination…).