Right to Information.

After a series of disasters this morning, I finally made it into uni for yet another one-class-Thursday. I swear the only thing with more difficulties than sinet timetables is government bureaucracy! As we all sat blank faced, no one seemed to want to answer the question posed by Neal Waddell: Was what Julian Assange did wrong?

"There is no right or wrong answer guys!" Neal encouraged us.

Although I'm sure part of the cause of silence was the general student follow-the-pack routine of not answering, it is in large a complicated situation which is difficult to provide a yes or no answer to. Should the public know about the actions of the government? Absolutely! The government, for the public's sake, should aspire to be as transparent as possible. However, this is where a black and white issue becomes somewhat grey and hazy - what information is in the public interest, and what information would only cause harm to nations and individuals? Furthermore, who should decide the nature of such information, as surely the government has a biased agenda. A few questions to ponder. 

To be honest, I don't think their is an outright answer to these questions, and the media has and will continue to evolve in relation to government trends, policies and workings. However, the media's attack on, essentially, itself has been interesting to follow. As has the Australian government's reaction and lack of consulate help afforded to Assange. This cartoon sums up the odd reaction of the media to the wikileaks 'scandal'.   

    

The thing that jumps out at me about the way in which the Australian media has treated this case - by disowning an Australian citizen in support of the U.S government's right to 'have secrets' - is the relationship between government and media. I would have assumed that in a country where the press is universally considered as the Fourth Estate, the media would present a less biased view. Instead, the mainstream consensus presented in the media seems to be that of the government - to keep relations with the U.S as positive as possible. This case is simply another demonstration of the power of not only the media, but the power in controlling the media. 

Scary stuff!