Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Wiki Bleak

A haftorah of reporting and responsibilities

Print Email
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at a press conference in London this week. (Eon Neal/AFP/Getty Images)

This week’s haftorah should come with a disclaimer: If you want good news, don’t hire a prophet.

Isaiah is case in point. Even as he embarks on what is known as a haftorah of consolation, the old man is adamant not to allow the gleaming glories of the future to blind us to the dark vagaries of the past. The return of the exiles? The coming of the messiah? We’ll get to that in a moment, quoth the prophet; but first, let us figure out how we got into the spiritual mess. Before he praises and promises and exalts, Isaiah leads off with a stern sentence: “Those who destroy you and those who lay you waste shall go forth from you.”

At first glance, there’s something almost perverse about this assignation of blame. The same sermon, after all, ends thusly: “For the Lord shall console Zion, He shall console all its ruins, and He shall make its desert like a paradise and its wasteland like the garden of the Lord; joy and happiness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and a voice of song.” Why muddle such a pure vision of happiness with talk of destruction and waste?

Herein lies the particular splendor of the Hebrew prophets. To them, redemption is never divorced from responsibility, and it requires not surrender to some celestial force of good but a set of hard choices and harsh reckonings. In other words, it requires agency. This is why it is important to begin any talk of redemption with a mention of destruction: If we don’t know why we were doomed, there’s no chance we could ever save ourselves.

For affirmation of this principle, look no further than Julian Assange, the driving force behind the website Wikileaks. This week, Assange provided three newspapers with more than 90,000 classified Pentagon documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan. As leaks go, this one is a deluge.

As is standard operating procedure for our shell-shocked media, the story was reported loudly and in brief, leaving anyone lacking the time or disposition to thumb through nearly a decade’s worth of field reports without any real understanding of what the hell had just happened.

To hear Assange put it, that’s precisely the point. The Australian-born hacker is an advocate of “scientific journalism,” a method of reporting that consists of releasing reams of data and documents; unfettered access to sensitive information, goes the theory, allows for empirical examinations and leads to uncontested truths.

In theory, this is a fine idea. And it’s an idea, Assange frequently argues, that’s been proven effective—just look at Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, another massive leak that contributed to major policy changes and ended a wrongful war.

But the Pentagon Papers are as far from Wikileaks as Ellsberg is from Assange. The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, contained a coherent historical narrative and exposed the perfidy of the Johnson Administration and its deliberate obfuscation of the truth regarding the escalating war in Vietnam. They were compiled by men of great expertise and then studied for months by journalists at the Times prior to publication. Wikileaks’ data dump, on the other hand, is just that. Looking for context? Searching for conclusions? You’re going to have to do it yourself, which, unless you possess the skills, the training, and the experience, is a lost cause.

Ellsberg, of course, possessed all three. He attended Harvard and Cambridge, graduated at the top of his class at the Marine Corps Basic School, and served as a platoon leader before joining Robert McNamara’s staff. Assange is a hacker, arrested and fined for forcing his way into the computer networks of numerous organizations around the world, from an Australian university to a Canadian telecom company. If we take Assange’s “scientific journalism” metaphor seriously, we could safely say that while Ellsberg was qualified to analyze information pertaining to war, Assange’s credentials and qualifications should carry him no further than the lab’s cafeteria.

The silver-haired activist, of course, holds that everyone’s an expert, that experts are frauds, and that authority—any kind, anywhere, always—is oppressive and needs to be punished. In a now-famous turn of phrase, he explained the motivation for his life’s work thusly: “I enjoy crushing bastards.”

That’s a swell attitude for a sophomore, but not very instructive for anyone hoping—as Assange repeatedly stated was the case—to influence policy and public opinion. And it explains, perhaps, the leak’s relative lack of resonance: As soon as serious students of the war had their chance to analyze Assange’s treasure trove, they realized—and we with them—that there was nothing new in Wikileaks’ tall stack of reports. The Pakistani intelligence service is secretly supporting the Taliban? A great revelation, unless you happened to read The New York Times two years ago, when a story titled “Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say” was clandestinely buried on the front page of the newspaper. Civilian death toll? A sensational scoop to anyone too lazy to have followed the detailed and often credible count offered by at least one human rights organization. In short, all that remains of Assange’s act, less than a week after his big reveal, is the echo, fast fading, of self-congratulation and the sulfuric whiff of self-importance.

Had he been just another Internet gadfly, another trader in cat humor or conspiracy theories or any of the other intellectual roadkill that clutters the information superhighway, it might have been easy to dismiss Assange, as one does a Breitbart or a Drudge, as a pernicious prankster. But Assange is made of different stuff. He is interested in sweeping reforms, not partisan trickery, and his actions do stimulate a much-needed debate about freedom of information in the digital age. For these reasons and others, he’s been honored with laurels ranging from an Amnesty International award to a TED talk. To many fawning fans online, his is the future face of journalism.

This is nothing short of a disaster. As the recent leak demonstrates, Assange and Wikileaks represent the Internet’s worst indulgences and most fatal shortcomings. Rather than contextualize and analyze, this new journalism hurls data, raw and incomplete. Rather than devote time to studying a subject in depth, this new journalism focuses on subduing its sources. Rather than act responsibly, this new journalism shoots first and asks questions later. After all, why take on the burdens of leadership or submit to the demands of research or brave the battlefield when “crushing the bastards” on a website is so much easier, so much more fun?

Which brings us back to Isaiah. This week, the prophet has two important lessons for us. The first is that responsibility precedes redemption and that both involve hard work. The second is that unless we’re careful, we’ll bring about our own downfall. Let us remember both lessons next time we read the news.

Print Email
David says:

Another Tablet hack job. “Sulfurous whiff?” Leibovitz has to torture his own already sloppy writing in order to bring Isaiah back into his narrative — supposedly about responsibility. What Assange released were not the Pentagon Papers. Assange is not a Daniel Ellsberg. Who’s arguing this — except Leibovitz as a straw man?

But to dismiss the 90,000 documents released on the war in Afghanistan as simple “self congratulation” admired only by “fawning” sycophants is simply a load of crap.

The importance of the documents must be judged in conjunction with whatever else we have learned — say, from Stanley McCrystal or the past decade of news articles by “embedded” reporters presenting only a biased view of the war (which I didn’t hear Leibovitz whining about).

And then, on top of all this is the inescapable fact that we simply can’t believe what generals, presidents, and advisors tell us about wars. Never have. Even going back to the times of the prophets (Leibovitz should like this!) we find that David sent one of his generals to be killed at the front for a little booty. David lied. Colin Powell lied. LBJ lied.

Talk about responsibility!

Assange doesn’t claim he is offering the truth. All he’s doing is to make it possible to get a more informed view of the war. Something that 263 spy agencies, collusion by the MSM, and a culture of lying about wars and their costs habitually conceals.

To open the shutters just a bit more to admit more fresh air and light is, in fact, quite a responsible thing to do.

Isaiah would approve.

Celticpole says:

I don’t want to be told how to think. I’m disgusted with the nuances, the adjectives, the adverbs, and everything else that goes with one person trying to manipulate another’s opinions or beliefs. I’m fed up with disinformation and strange euphemisms for dead humans and the interesting way that they got to be that way. I am frakking sick of good wars, bad wars, and white sugar colored with molasses passed off as brown. We are only as sick as our secrets, and going by that, probably ALL of the “leadership” of the human race is diseased. Assanges’ message is simple: LIE and somebody, somewhere WILL whistleblow. The worrisome part of that for those who love to play in the dark is that if you anger enough of the “plebes” they will rise up and eat everything indiscriminately. Watch the US this November and in 2 years when Sarah Palin does, in fact, run for President.

Will Edwards says:

I think the author was trying to convey the reality this “leak” actually pertains to. The information is unfiltered and uncatagorized. The person doing the leaking appears more interested in his own importance then in the importance of the information being presented. It may prove important evidence if the United States Congress ever decided to hold people like Dick Cheney or GW Bush responsible for their actions, but other then that we all know the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are conflicts of convenience rather then any ideological stand. Please people… the Jewish education ethic is the best in the world. Are it’s students not?

Will Edwards says:

Was it Will Rogers who said “a man who gets in a fight 5000 miles from home had to be looking for trouble”?

Marc Grossberg says:

My concern with the leak was that, as I understand, it did not redact names, which puts people’s lives at risk. If Mr. Liebowitz is linking his opinions to the current haftorah portion and reporting responsibilities, unless I missed something, he didn’t opine on the irresponsibility of naming names and whether Assange should be held to account for what might happen to the persons identified. I would think that there are ample opportunities in Isaiah 49:14 – 51:3 to consider that transgression. “I will make your oppressors eath their own flesh” or “You were sold because of your own sins.” No more of a stretch than the ones made by Mr. Liebowitz.

Chris Kern says:

Liel
In Isaiah 56:11, it states, “They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, each seeks his own gain.”

If Israel had listened a little bit harder to God, I am sure that the last thousand years would look a lot different. That is the difference between self-gain and wisdom.

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you.
– Proverbs 4:6-9

Best Regards, 45Th President of the United States
Chris

Drew says:

I think Mr. Liebovitz misses the point. Mr. Assange’s lack of journalistic responsibility pales in comparison to his lack of concern for the Afghanis who are assisting the US war effort and whose lives are now in even more danger because their names have been revealed in this mountain of sitreps that Mr. Assange likely did not go through to redact.

Mountainjew says:

This article misses the main point of this incident: ANYONE can become a wikileaker. All one needs is access to information and at that point, it is potentially available to everyone.

This is not an unknown issue. It was quite clear back in the 80s that this was the trajectory of information in the networked world. Democratic institutions need to anticipate and preempt this trend by releasing all non-actionable classified data to the public, carefully redacted, to remove the impulse to release raw unredacted data. Clearly the US intelligence agencies have the manpower to do so (based on the recent Washington Post series on the current intelligence estabilshment). Transparency as a rule will trump transparency in part.

Wikileaks is simply bringing the issue to the forefront. What I find most ironic is that The Guardian uses data that (topographic and digital elevation models) derived from classified sources to illustrate the location of leaked data stolen from classified sources — and everyone goes ballistic that data that came from classified sources is available to anyone.

This is the future folks. I had hoped that his administration with all of it’s IT and cyber gurus would have forseen and dealt with the issue before it became a problem, but clearly this was a naive wish.

uncommon to peer

29. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I’m looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

I possess read ones article. It’s genuinely helpful. We can benefit significantly from them. Fluent composing style and vivid thoughts make us all readers get pleasure from reading. I can share ones own opinions by using my pals.

Usually I don’t read post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, quite nice post.

I like what you guys are up also. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the excellent works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to my blogroll. I think it will improve the value of my website :)

I currently have read your article. It’s seriously helpful. We will be able to benefit significantly from it all. Fluent producing style along with vivid ideas make united states readers benefit from reading. I will share ones opinions with my buddies.

Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research on this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more clear from this post. I am very glad to see such great information being shared freely out there.

Many reasons for falling motivated by this post. The opinions were perfectly defined and incredibly persuasive. After reading the content, I learned a whole lot which will be very helpful to my future life.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Wiki Bleak

A haftorah of reporting and responsibilities

More on Tablet:

The Nazi Romance With Islam Has Some Lessons for the United States

By David Mikics — Two new important histories look at Hitler’s fascination with Islam and Turkish conqueror Atatürk