Here at PdF, we’re obviously paying close attention to the unfolding Wikileaks drama. But what about America’s political-technology professionals, the people who, as Nancy put it in her earlier post today on DDOS, “at one point or another in their careers, were responsible for major web presences and web services for some of the biggest political candidates, publications, and advocacy groups in American politics”? What are they thinking about Wikileaks?
About a dozen people shared their thoughts with us (and a few others took a pass, citing the delicacy of the issue). You can read their full comments below, but here are the highlights.
First, on a scale of 0 to 10, there’s a wide variation in just how closely people have been following the story. Nicco Mele, the CEO and “resident futurist” at EchoDitto (a Democratic web strategy firm that came out of the Dean campaign) gave it a 9, saying he is following Wikileaks “pretty intensely, several times a day.” Cheryl Contee, a partner at Fission Strategy, another progressive firm, put herself at an 8-9. Republican Soren Dayton at New Media Strategies was a 7. Markos Moulitsas a 4. Chuck DeFeo, former e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney ’04 was a 2-3. But overall, our group averaged almost a 6.
Asked, “do you support or oppose what Wikileaks is doing with the State Dept cables, and why,” no one expressed total support. Mele gave Wikileaks his “qualified support,” arguing that “much of the material on Wikileaks is forcing greater openness and accountability,” but raising concerns about “the ethics of the Wikileaks organization itself.” Moulitsas said he didn’t support or oppose what Wikileaks is doing, and said he was “more interested in the government and media reaction to it.” He added, “If press freedoms are eroded because Wikileaks makes some people uncomfortable, then suddenly I’m feeling a lot less secure myself.” That said, he concluded, “I believe strongly that it has a right to do what it is doing.” Contee agreed with that sentiment, but stated that she “would have preferred a more focused delivery to the public that shed light on any government misconduct or mis-information particularly around the management of wars.” She added, “I don’t agree with publishing information that feeds gossip or damages U.S. relationships without purpose and I don’t believe in publishing data that might have endangered people’s lives including undercover agents.”
Several of our respondents were strongly opposed to Wikileaks’ actions. Most were, not surprisingly, from the right side of the aisle. Soren Dayton declared, “It is pretty clear that Assange’s target is, broadly, American power. So I strongly oppose that as both an American and as someone who is convinced that US power is one of the most pre-freedom, pro-liberal (in the European sense) forces in the world.” Chuck DeFeo concurred, saying, “I believe in government transparency but value the need for national security. It is not in our nation’s best interest for Assange to decide what our government should release to the world or not.” And one respondent who asked not to be named, given the sensitivity of their current job, was also strongly opposed: “Indiscriminate publication of sensitive information, and sometimes classified information, is not only criminal, under U.S. law, but it’s foolish. It endangers the lives of people all across the world. It also jeopardizes the diplomacy efforts of the United States and her allies.”
Obviously, the debate over Wikileaks has just started.
Below, the full comments from our respondents:
Q: Do you support or oppose what Wikileaks is doing with the State Dept cables, and why?
Nicco Mele, CEO and “resident futurist” of
December 14, 2010