WikiLeaks, Assange & Feminism: Base and Superstructure

Let me get this out of the way first (a strategy I am starting to employ frequently when discussing WikiLeaks-related issues): I accept as a fact that the handing of the Assange case by Swedish authorities was embarrassing and unprofessional, and that a number of Assange’s rights have been violated; I accept as a fact that the media portrayal of Assange was unfair (in large part as a result of the Swedish authorities’ handling), and any presumption of innocence on his part dramatically decreased in the court of popular opinion; I accept as a fact that there has been a great deal of schadenfreude surrounding this case by those who would wish to see Assange and WikiLeaks silenced (including journalists who feel that WikiLeaks stepped on their turf); I accept as a fact that domestic politics in Sweden has played into the case (though the extent of this is unclear); and, I accept as a possibility that the US has exerted influence over the proposed questioning of Assange.

As a supporter of WikiLeaks, however, I have tweeted that I felt the “radical feminist” line in the Assange case promoted by de Noli and Burke was damaging, and that WikiLeaks should refrain from re-tweets to the articles so as to avoid undermining the important organizational goals of WikiLeaks.  Before I could finish, however, de Noli published an intellectually embarrassing (for him, not me) presentation of me and my work, to which I responded. Thus, I wanted to clarify my intellectual and personal positions in relation to WikiLeaks before writing this post, since I was misrepresented by de Noli. I don’t feel the need to justify my ideological credentials again. For those who want to know about me and where I stand, read my response.

So, what is my problem? What I feel is “nonsense” in many of the articles and essays on the feminism-Assange issue is this: that the discussion of feminism (and so-called “radical feminism”) has expanded beyond a discussion of any concrete relationship between these issues and the Assange case, and into a broader presentation of feminism in Sweden which serves to misrepresent, and undermine, what I consider to be TWO important social movements: transparency (the WikiLeaks agenda) and feminism itself.

Let me give a concrete example of what I am talking about. Helene Bergman, who is widely cited by de Noli and Burke in their analyses of Swedish feminism, wrote a piece entitled, “Assange is Right: Sweden’s the Saudi Arabia of Feminism”. To make clear that the title was not a catchy headline to attract readers, the following is a passage from the piece:

He (Assange) calls Sweden the Saudi Arabia of feminism. He was the only one who dared call it for what it is and I as a real feminist agree with him. Despite the fact that it’s enormously politically incorrect to criticise feminism in Sweden.

If Bergman is willing to accept and defend the assertion that Sweden is the “Saudi Arabia of feminism,” then I am afraid, to me, she loses all credibility as a commentator or expert on feminism in Sweden. To use my word: nonsense. And, thus, those who cite her (such as Burke and de Noli) as an authority also lose credibility. Women in Saudi Arabia are whipped, stoned and executed for the slightest “moral” or religious infractions; and, women in Saudi Arabia are denied even the most fundamental human rights in a brutal misogynist system. I must confess, as I go through my daily life in Stockholm – where I see newspapers obsessed with women’s bodies, vans driving by my apartment advertising strip clubs with huge pictures of nude women, university departments (at Uppsala, de Noli’s haven of “radical feminism”) where there is not one single female professor, and young girls sexualized in the most quasi-pedophilic manner in Swedish advertising (if you want some pictures just drop me a line) – that this assertion is an insult not only to the women of Saudi Arabia, but to feminism. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism? Really? I can tell Bergman that, as a man living in Sweden, I don’t know any men who are veiled, can’t drive, or have been buried up to their necks and had their heads crushed by a hail of rocks thrown by women. But, maybe I just live in a nice part of town.

Supporters of Assange and WikiLeaks who cite this type of commentary cannot have their cake and eat it too. Any academic or journalist should know that the basis of intellectual thought is the building of one solid idea upon another. If one builds upon sand, however, the superstructure will fall. If they really believe that Sweden is like Saudi Arabia, then they are divorced from reality and abdicate their right to be “experts”. If they do not believe it, but still spread the comments anyway, then they are guilty of something worse: the use of what they know to be hyped-up, misleading opinion which could unfairly tar an entire group engaged in a just struggle (gender equality). Bergman is more than entitled to her opinion that Sweden is just like Saudi Arabia; but, as a WikiLeaks supporter, I also have the right to say that this opinion undermines both  WikiLeaks and feminist causes. To me, the ends simply do not justify the means.

Supporters need more than frenzied claims about Saudi Arabia; they need more than an interview with Helene Bergman (p. 49) where she says that she is, “fairly certain”  that other feminists agree with her, but that “so far none of them has dared to speak out”; and, supporters also need more than one retired judge who, upon cross-examination, admits that she: “had no personal knowledge of the conduct of the prosecutor in the case, basing her views instead on what she had been told”. In order to influence the court of popular opinion, WikiLeaks and Assange need better than this. Thus my disappointment. I am also tired of the juvenile and intellectually backward arguments that I get in response to these issues, which re-position me as some type of apologist for “radical feminism” without the slightest shred of evidence, simply because I dare to question some of the assumptions made.

The other form of nonsense which I find unacceptable is the use of vague suggestion, opinion and innuendo that radical feminism has some type of grip on Swedish socio-political life. In his essay, for example, Burke writes:

(…) while elements of the Social Democratic Party have assumed a leading role on such issues, they are hardly alone and are occasionally surpassed. The former leader of the Left Party, for example, famously or infamously declared that the “structures” of male dominance in Swedish society are essentially the same as those of the Taliban fundamentalists in Afghanistan. Given the current level of debate in Sweden, such pronouncements can be taken seriously in some quarters; and it is politically impossible, even for the Conservative Party, to ignore the strain of feminist thought that prosecutor Ny appears to be promoting at the expense of Julian Assange.

“Elements” and “some quarters”? Not very specific. It is interesting that Burke writes that these radicals are also “hardly alone” (equally vague), and offers a grand total of one example of broader acceptance of radical feminism in mainstream Swedish society: the former leader of the Left Party, in this case, is Gudrun Schyman, who went on to co-found the Feminist Initiative, the only feminist party in Sweden. Can I also point out the mind-numbingly obvious fact that Burke is ridiculing Schyman for comparing Sweden to fundamentalist Afghanistan, while at the same time (and along with de Noli) citing Bergman, who compares Sweden to fundamentalist Saudi Arabia. To me, both opinions are bullshit. To de Noli and Burke, however, only one opinion is bullshit. Yet I am the one who is  illogical and blinded by propaganda?

De Noli also used Schyman and the Feminist Initiative in his arguments:

Known right-wing “radical” Swedish feminists have themselves stated, “Julian Assange is a symbol” for their cause, and actively participated in mediatic anti-Assange campaigns or even publicly celebrated its success. Organizations of left-wing “radical” Swedish feminists  – to the best of my knowledge – have never taken distance from such deeds or positions. Moreover, the chairman of the Swedish Party Feminist Initiative, Gudrun Schyman, has publicly associated the case Assange with the need of “a better legislation than the one we have”. 

In brief response to these assertions, I tweeted the fact that the Feminist Initiative received a rather embarrassing 0.68% of the vote in the 2006 national elections, and 0.40% of the vote in 2010 – and that they were roundly beaten in both elections by the neo-fascist Sweden Democrats – and that this suggested that feminism (radical or otherwise) was not playing nearly as central a role in national politics as Burke and de Noli suggest. A simple, factual response, one would think. De Noli, however, in response to my tweet, wrote:

A third item is the confounding Christensen indulges when referring to “Radical feminism” in Sweden as if this – in fact an ideology or an ideological concept – would be simply equated with the political organization “Feminist Initiative” 

So, after de Noli and Burke use Schyman and the Feminist Initiative as evidence of the role of radical feminism in Swedish political life, I am then castigated by de Noli for using the election results for the Feminist Initiative as evidence of the role of radical feminism in Swedish political life. Again, they want their rhetorical cake (to spread suggestions that Sweden is a quasi-radical feminist state) and eat it as well (to simply paint those who provide problematic evidence as narrow-minded).

As I wrote above, it is my position that attacks by some (but not all) WikiLeaks supporters against feminism in the defense of Assange have been conducted in an intellectually slipshod fashion, and that the sloppiness of these attacks only serve to undercut – ironically, given the commitment of WikiLeaks to the exposure and eradication of structural inequalities in society – not only the efforts of feminists worldwide to fight patriarchy, but also the efforts of WikiLeaks volunteers and supporters to maintain the position of the organization as a serious actor in global politics. WikiLeaks and related organizations are much needed in contemporary society, but not, I would argue, at the expense of sacrificing the reputation of entire socio-political movements, many of whose members and supporters are in no way affiliated with the Assange case.

Let me end by saying that today, just a matter of days before the Assange decision comes from London, I read an interesting tweet from @x7o who wrote (in response to critics writing that WikLeaks’ tweets on Syria constituted de facto praise for Assad):

What is it about you people that you are so mind-numbingly stupid as to interpret criticism of one thing as praise of its opposite?

I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. It’s just a shame that this logic is not utilized by some WikiLeaks followers who turn any critique of their position on feminism in Sweden into an accusation of a hatred of WikiLeaks and a pro-US, pro-war position.

Without the will to accept dissenting opinions without condemning the dissenter, any purported commitment to democracy, justice or freedom of speech is just a façade.

WikiLeaks Supporters: Thinking Right?

(This post is a response to Professor Christensen vs. WikiLeaks? by Marcello Ferrada de Noli. A post on my specific thoughts on the relationship between WikiLeaks, feminism and the Assange case will follow in the coming days.)

WikiLeaks Supporters: Thinking Right?

I have a great job. As a university professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, I am afforded a number of luxuries not on offer to the vast majority of human beings throughout the world. I have a good salary, good working conditions, security and, importantly, a level of intellectual freedom which allows me to look at events in the world and consider them within broader, critical contexts. When I was promoted to the position of Professor at Uppsala, I made my feelings regarding the role of the academic in public life clear in my installation speech (a public lecture given by professors upon their promotion). I concluded my talk with the following quote from Noam Chomsky:

Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us. The responsibilities of intellectuals, then, are much deeper than what Macdonald calls the “responsibility of people,” given the unique privileges that intellectuals enjoy.

In my academic work, I have attempted in some small way to live up to Noam Chomsky’s ideals, and mixed my research and writing with more public discussions on the uneven distribution of power in society in general, and the role of the media in this distribution in particular. My work to date has included academic studies on public broadcasting and commercial news in Sweden, the representation of Islam, the use of documentary film as an anti-war tool, concentration of media power in Turkey, the use of YouTube during the occupation in Iraq, and a critique of Swedish government aid to net activists. My popular, non-academic publications have been more wide-ranging, from pieces on Bruce Springsteen to Iran to US journalism, but I have always attempted to maintain a critical focus on commercial media, and the role that these media play in the consolidation of elite power. In all of these pieces I have not hidden my ideological rejection of (1) free-market myths, (2) arguments in favor of US supremacy and (3) structures which enable oppression or inequality.

In my more recent popular pieces (#1, #2, #3), I have turned my attention to WikiLeaks: an organization I considered (and still consider) to be a vital actor in the exposure of lies and abuses of power at the highest levels. While I recognize the importance of WikiLeaks, this recognition has not stopped me from raising questions regarding the activities of WikiLeaks or supporters that could, as far as I see it, have a potentially negative impact upon an agenda I consider worth pursuing (transparency in the service of justice). For anyone who has read these articles, it is clear that I mix a healthy respect for WikiLeaks with a desire to engage in honest discussion about what the organization has done, is doing, and where it is going. Without such debate, claims that the organization and the followers are democratic simply ring hollow.

It is for this reason that I sent out a tweet about a week ago following the re-tweet by WikiLeaks of a link to an article written by Al Burke entitled, “Suspicious Behavior.” In the tweet, I encouraged WikiLeaks to refrain from re-tweeting links to articles promoting a “radical feminist” thesis I described as “nonsense.” My irritation was based on the fact that the feminist line has been pushed by WikiLeaks via these re-tweets (including essays by de Noli). Of course, Twitter is not the best place to engage in a debate on why I felt the thesis was nonsense, so, following Twitter messages from 4 individuals (no more, by the way) challenging my assertion, I decided to write a blog post to explain my position, and why I feel that a promotion of this argument only serves to undercut the broader WikiLeaks political agenda. I fully accept that if I call the position “nonsense” on a public forum that I should be willing to put my reasons into writing.

However, before I could finish my piece, de Noli published a blog entry about me. I must say that I am grateful for this posting, as it made the work of explaining my general position on WikiLeaks much clearer. De Noli’s essay is, to my mind, a crystallization of everything that is intellectually wrong with a certain faction of WikiLeaks supporters, whose arguments are a melange of opinion, selective “facts” and dogma. (De Noli insinuates, based on no evidence whatsoever other than pure chronology, that my tweet was connected to a “message” that was sent to me via my blog from “an American campaigner”. It was not.)

After the post was published I wrote to de Noli on Twitter and informed him that I would be posting my own response, and that his post had re-enforced my feeling that anyone who disagreed with his thesis was automatically painted as anti-WikiLeaks and anti-Assange. De Noli sent me a number of tweets with links to logic websites and claims that he is only dedicated to “facts.” As I say, I was in the process of writing my arguments regarding the WikiLeaks-feminism thesis when de Noli posted his thoughts about me. So, I felt the need to clarify where I stand, and where I see myself in relation to WikiLeaks before outlining my position on the feminism issue (which I will do in a post in the coming days). De Noli’s presentation of me, however, must be addressed first.

With De Noli’s dedication to “facts” in mind, I would like to address the points he raises, and use them to illustrate the intellectual weaknesses in his arguments.

Interestingly, de Noli starts his piece with an attack on the motto of my university:

“To think free is great; but to think right is greater” (att tänka fritt är stort att tänka rätt är store) Inscription engraved at Uppsala University’s library

“That a University calls on its scholars to think ‘right’ should trouble all who value academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, it harkens back to the old days when Universities were not independent centres of learning but were, indeed, constrained by the church and the Monarchy to “think right” or be shut down. Attacks on the scientific process and promotion of non-scientific dogma in some faculties in Uppsala University suggests that this old proclamation (still) reflects the University’s position in thinking according to cannons of political correctness imposed by an authority.” Professors blog

The quotation above was written by Thomas Thorild in 1794 and set in stone above the main university building in 1877. Exactly what this has to do with myself or WikiLeaks is an absolute mystery. Unless, that is, de Noli is under the impression that Uppsala University uses the university motto as a benchmark for all research produced at the institution. Since the university has established itself as a world-leader in the hard sciences, de Noli must be confused as to how this happened with such an anti-science motto. Either that, or de Noli is simply trying to link me, in an intellectually infantile manner, to a motto which I reject and consider to be complete bullshit.

Later in his piece, de Noli has a 720-word section entitled, Uppsala University and Swedish extreme “radical feminists” in which he discusses the hiring and work of feminist scholar Eva Lundgren (as well as a diatribe against qualitative research). De Noli explains:

The relevance of this to this article, is that it refers to the same Uppsala Faculty which has allocated several professors at the Ethical Research Committee of Uppsala that approved the “feminist” cultural-racists study by Eva Lundgren research associates – the theme which Professors blog analysed in “Throw them all out”.

This sentence sounds impressive, if you ignore the fact that it is completely irrelevant to my work. I have never met Eva Lundgren, never read or cited any of her research, never been involved in a research project, article, proposal, course, class, seminar, or lunch meeting with her. Nor has any of my work, to date, gone through the Ethical Research Committee de Noli mentions. Again, what Eva Lundgren’s job at Uppsala, or the Ethical Research Committee, has to do with me or WikiLeaks, and why he chose to spend so much time writing about someone I don’t even know and have never written about, is something only de Noli can explain. Unless, of course, de Noli feels that if Professor X is at the same university as Professor Y, that they must have some form of intellectual bond. Or, if a university hires someone questionable, or approves of their work, this de facto reflects upon all faculty members at that university. That would be like me saying that anyone who studied or worked at Harvard University, as de Noli did, has some type of intellectual connection to anyone else who studied or worked at Harvard. For example, Henry Kissenger, who green-lit the mass slaughter of Cambodians during the VietNam War, and not only wrote his dissertation at Harvard, but was Director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program between 1958 and 1971. Or, a number of documented war criminals admitted to the university after their crimes were committed. So, Harvard is a university that condoned work with the US government and military during Viet Nam and has taken on documented war criminals. Does this make de Noli an intellectual accomplice to these people? No, because to suggest so would be absurd. To me, anyway.

My Background and Work

It is always fascinating to read a description of oneself written by another, especially when that person has carefully and selectively picked portions of your work and life, and offered descriptions of that work, which help them to shape a particular image of you. As noted, de Noli admonished me for a lack of logical rigor, and asked that we stick to “facts” in our discussions. As any scientist should know, the use of facts is by no means a guarantee that an accurate image will come out, especially when a scientist decides to omit certain facts which do not fit a particular agenda. Here is how de Noli described me:

Christian Christensen is an American researcher who graduated from Texas University and who was drawn to my attention for his several twitters and critical articles he has published on WikiLeaks, notably his most recent piece “WikiLeaks vs. Sweden”.

Let’s start here. Yes, I am American and I graduated from the University of Texas at Austin. I congratulate de Noli for finding those facts. Unfortunately, his ability to resist the temptation to shape reality takes hold in the second part of the sentence. His use of the term “several…critical articles he has written on WikiLeaks” is important. I have, to date, published four articles on WikiLeaks: two in Le Monde Diplomatique, one academic piece, and one on my blog. After the publication of my first piece in Le Monde Diplomatique entitled, WikiLeaks: Three Digital Myths, my name and contact information were placed on the WikiLeaks webpage as a contact in Sweden who would could “comment” on the organization to journalists. I guess WikiLeaks felt the piece exhibited enough thought to put me down as a commentator, which hardly suggests an antagonistic attitude to the organization on my part. Yet, for some reason, de Noli does not include this in his list of “facts.”

In all four of the articles I make clear my belief in the importance of WikiLeaks to contemporary society, and the ways in which the organization highlighted the failure of mainstream media to adequately tackle issues such as the Iraq War. Again, de Noli avoids these facts. Interestingly, a link to the Sweden vs. Assange article was re-tweeted by the @Wikileaks twitter feed (together with Kristinn Hrafnsson’s piece, which was placed as an “opposing view” to mine); to date, the essay has been viewed 452 times. This isn’t a massive number, but one would assume that if the essay was perceived as unfair or unbalanced, that I would get at least some negative feedback or accusations from WikiLeaks supporters of being anti-Assange or anti-WikiLeaks. I have not.

De Noli continues:

Christensen was academically stationed in Turkey after 2002 where he wrote several pieces on Iran and the role of social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs) in, among other areas “enabling the spread of state propaganda and surveillance”. Inferred from his CV, he has been also active in Finland or Norway before moving to Sweden where he has resided since 2006. In 2010 he received a professorship at Uppsala University. The Swedish government’s agency Council for Working Life and Social Research – a Swedish authority under the Ministry of Social Affairs – currently finances Christensen’s research with the equivalent sum of 383,484 USD (2.7 million Swedish Kr, or 300,000 Euro) for the project “The Social Journalist: News Work and News Organizations in an Age of Networked Sociality.” Christensen is professor of media and communication studies and in his personal presentation at the Uppsala University directory, he describes his primary special area being the “use of social media during times of war”.

Apart from the factual errors that I wrote these pieces on social media while living in Turkey (they were written in Sweden), and that I have have lived in Norway (I have not), the key here is de Noli’s description of my research project, which he writes is financed by “the Swedish government’s agency Council for Working Life and Social Research (link added by CC, not in original quote)– a Swedish authority under the Ministry of Social Affairs.”

See the clever rhetorical angle here? I can see the headline: “Professor who hates WikiLeaks and Assange has research paid for by Swedish government.” Yes, but, then again, everyone who is an academic in Sweden works for, and is paid by, the Swedish government, as universities are state institutions. Including de Noli, by the way, who made a career accepting Swedish government money as an academic in Sweden. And, as de Noli decides not to tell readers, the state is one of the largest funders of academic research in Sweden, regardless of discipline, so having a project funded from the state budget is hardly evidence of bias. And, for some strange reason, de Noli has forgotten to mention the very latest last academic article I published: a peer-reviewed critique of the current Conservative administration’s policy regarding Swedish state aid to global net activism (in addition to a large number of critical tweets I have directed at the current administration regarding this policy and other technology-related issues).

Finally, I would like to end by discussing de Noli’s key complaint against me: that I do not understand (or simply reject) the difference between the leaks that WikiLeaks release via their websites, and the information that they relay via, for example, Twitter. And, that I am part of some type of right-wing elite alliance to stifle freedom of speech. On the first issue, de Noli writes:

In sum, the interpretation errors here appear to be two-fold, in form and in content Formally, because it is up to WikiLeaks editors to decide both what to make public in disseminating information at their official sites and with whom and how to interact in their Twitter account; and also because it is erroneous to equate different modes in the societal interaction of WikiLeaks.

 Had de Noli bothered to look at what I had written in WikiLeaks vs. Sweden, he would have read the following:

Following the allegations made against Assange, and the rapid deterioration of the relationship between WikiLeaks and their former partners in the mainstream media (such as the New York, Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel), the organization has taken what appears to be a far more aggressive role. Rather than discussing relationships between media and governments, and citizens and governments, it is now necessary to address the direct relationship between WikiLeaks and these groups.  In particular, WikiLeaks has made use of Twitter (the organization has over one million followers) as a platform for the spread of information and opinion regarding a wide variety of issues. Via the use of this technology, WikiLeaks has expanded its brand beyond the collection and dissemination of leaked documents, to what appears to be a more direct advocacy-oriented strategy, with the organization mounting a campaign against perceived bias with the Swedish justice system in general, and those involved in the Assange case in particular. (…) What is clear from the Swedish case is that WikiLeaks has become something more than this: it has become an organization that is willing to confront not only governments, but also media outlets and even individuals via a variety of digital tools, not simply via leaked documents.

I am well aware that WikiLeaks representatives have denied that there was or is a deliberate campaign against Sweden; but, as I very clearly state, I suggested a clear campaign against perceived bias and those specifically involved in the case. And, as the section above also indicates – and in contrast to de Noli’s “analysis” of my position – I am also aware of the difference between leaks and what WikiLeaks releases via social media. In fact, that was the entire point of the article: how WikiLeaks was utilizing social media in contrast/addition to the leaks, and asking how this new angle could be considered in light of the organizations brand and raison d’etre. I would like to think this is a valid, important question for anyone genuinely interested in the future of WikiLeaks. It is also worth noting that in the entire article, the word “feminism” is used twice: once where I state that I am “surprised” that feminism was targeted so clearly in the tweets (which I am); and, the other was part of a quotation from the Swedish journalist Karin Olsson’s Guardian piece attacking Julian Assange: an article I described in my post as being “vitriolic.”

There is a real irony here. After 9/11, those of us from the United States who opposed the war in Iraq were often accused by conservatives and pro-war advocates as being un-American, pro-terrorism, anti-democracy and, worst of all, in favor of the troops being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, in this blinkered intellectual view (exemplified by Fox News), it was simply impossible to be a “good American” and be against the war. The lack of rational thinking in the argument made it difficult to counter. Unfortunately, I see many of the same tactics being employed by certain WikiLeaks followers, many of whom are quick to paint anyone who disagrees with any element related to the organization as anti-WikiLeaks, anti-Assange agents of US power. In other words, in this case, it is simply impossible to be a WikiLeaks supporter and critique the way in which the organization has tarred feminism in Sweden with a broad brush (which is the essential critique I will offer in my next post).

A decade of my popular research and writing is available online to be read, and so to be linked with right-wing think-tanks and conservative journalists as part of some kind of pro-US, pro-Sweden, anti-Assange, anti-WikiLeaks campaign would be funny, were it not so sad.

WikiLeaks vs. Sweden

WikiLeaks vs. Sweden

by Christian Christensen

(Note that this essay was originally written for print publication, and thus there are no links. These will be added at a later date.)

It was a match made in heaven: the radical whistleblowing site with hundreds of thousands of documents – many containing evidence of possible war crimes committed by the US military – and the tech-savvy, social-democratic country with some of the oldest freedom of information laws in the world. The relationship forged between the WikiLeaks organization and Sweden appeared to be one of mutual respect, with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s admiration for Swedish democratic principles and whistleblower protection, and Sweden’s support for greater global political transparency. The relationship would begin to disintegrate, however, following the much-reported allegations made against Assange by two women in August of 2010.

The nadir came on February 22, 2012, when WikiLeaks announced that it has obtained documents showing that the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, starting as far back as back in 1973, had acted as a US informant. In the story, broken by the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen, an unnamed source who reportedly had seen the documents was quoted as saying that Bildt would have to resign once the they became public, and that his political career would be over. The story received generous media attention in Sweden, but this was not the first time that the allegations regarding Bildt had been made public. In a January 2012 interview in Rolling Stone, Julian Assange himself was quoted as saying that Bildt, “became a U.S. Embassy informant in 1973” when, during an early visit to Washington to attend “a conservative leadership program,” the Foreign Minster first made contact with Karl Rove. The Rove relationship, it turned out, would be an unexpected thread running through the WikiLeaks-Sweden case.

In recent months, WikiLeaks (primarily via Twitter) has presented a steady stream of articles, blog postings and opinion pieces indicating the close relationship between Karl Rove and  the current conservative coalition government in Sweden. Rove had been invited to Sweden as a consultant prior to the 2010 elections (a fact covered by the tabloid press), but Twitter messages from WikiLeaks (and WikiLeaks supports) raised the question of whether or not the Rove-Sweden relationship had influenced the accusations against Assange, as well as if Rove could sway any future decision regarding an Assange extradition from Sweden to the United States.

Bildt claimed that his friendship with Rove was hardly news, and that the allegations against him were without merit and part of a “smear campaign.” Expressen, in turn, reported that they had obtained internal WikiLeaks documents showing that the organization had a coordinated information campaign in place regarding Swedish interests should Assange be sent from the United Kingdom to Sweden for questioning. The unnamed Expressen source noted that Assange’s advisers were convinced that a deal between Sweden and the United States had already been struck and that, once in Sweden, would then be extradited to the US. The material held by WikiLeaks, in this case, would be used as leverage to stop this from happening.

The story was good news fodder, with the substantial caveat that none of the information discussed in either the Expressen article or Assange interview had been verified (the leaked documents on Bildt or the internal WikiLeaks memos), nor had the anonymous source who had analysed the WikiLeaks material for Expressen been identified. However, the suggestion on the part of the WikiLeaks organization that it had damaging information regarding Bildt was not the first, but the latest in a line of attacks made against not only the current Swedish administration, but against broader socio-political structures within Sweden.

As a researcher, the increasingly antagonistic WikiLeaks-Sweden relationship is interesting for a variety of reasons. Naturally, one could examine the many legal and political ramifications of the case against Julian Assange, of a possible extradition to Sweden, or of his eventually standing trial in the United States. The same type of analysis could be done in relation to the sensational allegations made against Bildt by WikiLeaks itself. However, the events of the past 18 months have raised a series of more far-reaching questions regarding technology, citizenship, the media and the role of WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks-related organizations.

In two earlier articles for Le Monde Diplomatique I argued that the WikiLeaks phenomenon had forced us to rethink a number of core democratic relationships: the one between citizens and the state (impacted by WikiLeaks providing access to sensitive intelligence previously hidden from view); the one between citizens and the media (impacted by WikiLeaks exposure of the shortcomings of an uncritical commercial media system); and, the one between media and governments (impacted by WikiLeaks challenging the mantle of “watchdog” proudly trumpeted by major mainstream news outlets). This is not to say that these relationships altered dramatically post-WikiLeaks, but rather that WikiLeaks, through a unflinching determination to challenge global hegemonies (particularly the one held by the United States), threw down the gauntlet in front of those in power. This was, in many ways, a first step.

However, in a recent article the Editor-in-Chief of the New York Times, Bill Keller, argued that, contrary to popular opinion, WikiLeaks had not contributed to the expansion of digital transparency, but rather to an increase in the volume of surveillance and security exercised by the United States government. In other words: that WikiLeaks had not actually changed any relationships, but rather simply reinforced ones that already existed. An alternative reading of the impact of WikiLeaks from the one that Keller presents, however, is that increased surveillance and security is not evidence of the solidification of old relationships, but rather a by-product of changing relationships, or at least the fear of changing relationships. Why would the US increase both surveillance and security, one could ask, if it did not feel that WikiLeaks was in some way a legitimate threat to their power?

Where does the Swedish case fit into this? Following the allegations made against Assange, and the rapid deterioration of the relationship between WikiLeaks and their former partners in the mainstream media (such as the New York, Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel), the organization has taken what appears to be a far more aggressive role. Rather than discussing relationships between media and governments, and citizens and governments, it is now necessary to address the direct relationship between WikiLeaks and these groups.  In particular, WikiLeaks has made use of Twitter (the organization has over one million followers) as a platform for the spread of information and opinion regarding a wide variety of issues. Via the use of this technology, WikiLeaks has expanded its brand beyond the collection and dissemination of leaked documents, to what appears to be a more direct advocacy-oriented strategy, with the organization mounting a campaign against perceived bias with the Swedish justice system in general, and those involved in the Assange case in particular.

The WikiLeaks twitter feed has challenged a wide variety of elements within Swedish society, including the Swedish legal system, prisons, policing, government and, somewhat surprisingly, Swedish feminism. In response to the Assange case, the Twitter “hashtag” #prataomdet (“#talkaboutit”) was created by Finnish writer/critic Johanna Koljonen, intended as a space where women could discuss the “grey zones” surrounding sexual assault  (one of the issues raised in the accusations leveled against Assange). The hashtag proved to be enormously popular, so much so that in 2011 Koljonen was awarded a major journalism prize for her creation of the campaign.

The response from WikiLeaks (and WikiLeaks supporters, often “re-tweeted” by the official WikiLeaks feed) via Twitter was to question the neutrality of Koljonen, suggesting that she was a friend of one of the accusers, and that the campaign was nothing more than an attempt to shape public opinion against Assange. Similarly, a vitriolic article published in the Guardian by the Swedish journalist Karin Olsson (“Julian Assange: From Hero to Zero”) in which the WikiLeaks founder was portrayed as little more than a hollow figure who had long-since disappeared in “antisemetic and antifeminist slime” was met with suspicion by WikiLeaks and its supporters, who noted that Olsson wrote for Expressen, a newspaper owned by Sweden’s largest media company, Bonnier: the same company that sponsored the journalism prize given to Koljonen.

Lost in this battle, however, are the leaks themselves: the WikiLeaks raison d’être. As Bosse Lindquist, a Swedish documentary filmmaker who made what was widely considered to be the definitive film about WikiLeaks and Assange, noted in a recent interview on Swedish Television (SVT), WikiLeaks continues to release documents pertaining to a wide variety of countries, not just Sweden. Lindquist reasoned that it was therefore impossible to conclude that WikiLeaks is running a planned campaign against Sweden in particular. Yet this analysis still sees WikiLeaks as what it was a couple of years ago: an organization dedicated solely to the dissemination of classified material obtained by courageous whistleblowers. What is clear from the Swedish case is that WikiLeaks has become something more than this: it has become an organization that is willing to confront not only governments, but also media outlets and even individuals via a variety of digital tools, not simply via leaked documents. What remains to be seen is if this new version of WikiLeaks, with new relationships and multiple modes of publicity, can maintain the momentum it built using a far more focused agenda.

Michael Anti: “Social Media and Free Speech in China: The Challenges Behind the Great Firewall”

A talk by Michael Anti (Zhao Jing), Chinese journalist, political blogger and internet freedom activist:

“Social Media & Free Speech in China: The Challenges Behind the Great Firewall”

VENUE: Uppsala University, Universitetshuset, Biskopsgatan 3, Room IV

DATE & TIME: March 13, 2012 (1315-1500)

HOST: Media & Communication Studies, Department of Informatics & Media, Uppsala University

CONTACT: Professor Christian Christensen, Media & Communication Studies, Department of Informatics & Media, email: christian.christensen@im.uu.se

Michael Anti (Twitter: @mranti) is a journalist, political blogger and internet freedom activist whose blog was famously deleted by Microsoft in 2005 following pressure from Chinese authorities, and whose Facebook account was canceled in 2011. In addition to his blogging, Michael was a researcher for both the New York Times and Washington Post, and later columnist, correspondent and reporter for a number of newspapers including the Huaxia Times, 21st Century World Herald and Southern Metropolis Daily.

Michael Anti has been a 2007 Wolfson Press Fellow at Cambridge University, a 2008 Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, and the 2011 recipient of the M100 Sanssouci Media Award.

Video: The Power of the Microblogs – What is the Significance of Ai Weiwei and other Net Activists for Freedom of Speech in China?

THE VIDEO OF THE TALK DESCRIBED BELOW CAN BE SEEN BELOW AND HERE

I will take part in a panel discussion on net activism at Kulturhuset in Stockholm at 1900 on March 13, 2012. This panel is part of a series of events in connection with the Ai Weiwei exhibition at Magasin 3.

Tuesday March 13

The Power of the Microblogs – What is the Significance of Ai Weiwei and other Net Activists for Freedom of Speech in China?

Michael Anti (Zhao Jing), Chinese journalist, blogger and net acitivist currently at Harvard University.
Marina Svensson, Sinologist and China expert at Lund University with focus on human rights, justice and the Chinese media.
Christian Christensen, Professor at the Department of Media and Communication Studies at Uppsala University.
Moderator: Ulrika K. Engström, Swedish PEN and Enact consulting firm, where she works with sustainable strategies for business development with focus on China and human rights.

Venue: Kulturhuset/Hotade ord, Café Panorama, Sergels Torg, 7 pm.
In collaboration with Swedish PEN. In English.

http://vimeo.com/38855996

The Public Professor: Critical Intellectual Discourse in the Age of Social Media

(THE FOLLOWING IS THE TEXT OF MY PROFESSORIAL INSTALLATION SPEECH GIVEN AT AT UPPSALA UNIVERSITY ON NOVEMBER 16, 2011. AS IS THE CUSTOM, THE INTENDED AUDIENCE FOR THESE INSTALLATION TALKS IS BROAD AND NON-ACADEMIC.)

The Public Professor: Critical Intellectual Discourse in the Age of Social Media (CLICK FOR VIDEO)

Professor Christian Christensen, Media & Communication Studies

Professorial Installation Talk

Uppsala University, Sweden (November 16, 2011)

In 1967, in a piece entitled The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Noam Chomsky wrote the following:

It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass over without comment. Not so, however. For the modern intellectual, it is not at all obvious.

About one week from today my daughter will celebrate her second birthday. This means that she will be entering university – should she choose to go – in the year 2027. The title of my talk today is, “The Public Professor: Critical Intellectual Discourse in the Age of Social Media.” Part of my talk will be about what I see as the role of the university professor in a highly mediated environment, and in relation to what Noam Chomsky said about public intellectuals. But, it is also in part about my daughter, and the future of universities in what is rapidly becoming a highly commercialized academic environment.

As a media and communications scholar, many people take it for granted that I am able to communicate effectively in public fora. Communication to the public is not, of course, the central role of the communications scholar. We analyze and investigate various phenomena related to media and communications, but that does not necessarily mean that we are “good communicators” ourselves. In actual fact, this is probably one of the weaknesses of those of us who work in academia: that is, our inability to take the fascinating and critical ideas that we discuss in our journal articles and in our books, and translate them into what we might want to call, “popular language.”

In the academic world, the presentation of intellectual material in popular form is generally looked down upon.  I am educated in the United States, where the position of the “public intellectual” is significantly less defined (and respected) than it is here in Sweden and Europe. It is, I feel, a central duty for those of us working within academia to take the material that we do research on and to discuss it publicly, to make public – in some form and in some way – the knowledge that we have spent years gathering and shaping.

What does this issue – being a public professor – have to do with my daughter, and what does this have to do with social media?  I see these three issues as inter-linked. One of the things that I am most worried about in relation to my daughter starting university in 2027 is whether or not the university will come to exist in a form that we recognize today. What I mean by this is: a space within contemporary society not entirely dictated by commercial interests and considerations. It is one of the things that I am grateful for: that, as an employee of a university, at least to some extent, I work within a space where my thinking can be divorced from purely profit-making and commercial considerations.

Spaces such as these are becoming increasingly rare in contemporary society. The media, urban spaces, politics are all zones where the communication that we encounter (from text to visuals to speech) are soaked in the logic of the commercial. We are surrounded by advertising, from the moment we wake up in the morning, to the time we spend walking on the streets, to the very logos that we wear on our bodies in the form of clothing. Our media systems are almost exclusively commercial, and even countries with a history of public service broadcasting have seen that  history slowly erased, replaced with a commercialized reality.

As capitalism continues its march forward, there exists a drive to locate new elements of our existence that have yet to be turned into products to be bought and sold. Even our personal experiences have become fair game. The social media site Facebook essentially commodifies various elements of our private life: our thoughts, our pictures, our likes, our dislikes, our families, our friendships.

However, I do believe that social media – and I recognize that the very term “social media” is problematic – provide opportunities. I do not wish to stand here and sound like a techo-phobe or neo-Luddite,  and one of the positive byproducts of the development of the internet, digital technologies and social media has been the ability of what we might wish to call “ordinary citizens” to  make their voices heard. Now, again, let me say that this ability has been vastly overblown by the mainstream media. The vast majority of bloggers, videos on YouTube, postings to Facebook and tweets on Twitter, fall into digital black-holes, never to be seen or heard by the billions of users around the globe.

But, I myself have a blog. I use Facebook. I use Twitter. This is because opportunities do exist. Recent events in north Africa and the global Occupy Wall Street movement have shown that digital technologies can be utilized by ordinary citizens – those not wealthy or privileged enough to own a newspaper or  television station – for the greater good. Digital media use is not the ONLY factor in these cases, but it is A factor that cannot simply be dismissed. In the same way I would argue that academics, those of us employed as public sector workers, should make the most of these technologies in order to spread the information that we gather. To spread the research, the knowledge, the critical thinking that we have spent years and years cultivating.

Universities have become increasingly commodified: universities in the UK charge students tuition fees, and we in Sweden have begun to charge international students tuition fees, things that have been done in my own country, the United States,  for a number of years. Commodification was, for a long period, seen as anathema to higher education in Europe, but, as time as gone by, we have seen the increasing commodification of university life. In the same way, departments that are considered to be “unprofitable” – in other words, they do not have large numbers of students, or do not produce “cutting edge” research that attracts the interest of outside financers – simply begin to disappear. Language departments, and niche intellectual areas of inquiry struggle financially, and are therefore not “of value” to universities.

If we look forward to 2027, when my daughter will begin at university, then it is critical to ask if the departments that I have just discussed actually exist? Will the majority of universities, for example, have a French department? Will universities and their leaders be willing to stand up and defend the existence of departments that are, in fact, vital symbols of what a university SHOULD be in a modern society. That is: a space, a bastion for free thinking outside of market constraints and outside of market logic.

What will the 2027 university look like? To return back to social media and technology, I would hope that university faculty will be much more willing and able to spread information from inside to outside of the university walls. We exist in a privileged world. Of course university work is difficult. Getting a Ph.D. is hard. Many people do not understand this, and are amused by the suggestion that academics to hard work. Academia is hard, and especially so if you want to be a serious scholar.

What I mean by privilege is the degree of freedom I have within my working life: a degree that I can quite confidently say is not matched in most other areas of labor.  When I enter the classroom, I am given permission to discuss what I feel is important – from an intellectual and disciplinary standpoint – for students to know, and to do so in a manner of my choosing (within reasonable bounds, of course).  I am also able to pursue research fairly freely. Of course, there are constraints within external funding, theoretical paradigms and publishing practice, but, in large part, my decisions regarding the topics I will research, what I write and how I write are essentially my own. In this way, academia is a very, very rare environment.  It is a place where critical thinking is at least given a chance to develop, and it is one of the few places where critical thinking is actually encouraged.

While we often hear about the virtues of critical thinking in various segments of society, real critical thinking involves the questioning of power, the questioning of authority, the questioning of what we might broadly call “common sense” ideas. The questioning of these areas is not something that usually goes hand-in-hand with profit-making ventures, or the maintenance of status quo power. The open questioning of authority simply does not lend itself well to closed structures: be they political, corporate or theological. On the contrary, the recognition and acceptance of authority is the cornerstone of these types of structures. Despite the many problems that we see within academia (from the aforementioned dominance of certain paradigms to restrictive publishing and financing models), the university world is one which should depend upon the questioning of authority: be it authority in the form of theory, intellectual positions, but also the hierarchies of power within society in general.

It is the role of academic, as I see it, to take the things that we take for granted and to ask: Why? Whose interests are best served in taking these things for granted? Are the benefits spread equally throughout society via our commonsense ideas? If not, how might we remedy this imbalance? These are the intellectual points of departure that made universities such crucial centers for dissenting intellectual opinions in relation to issues as varied as equal rights for women, for minorities, and for the working classes; and a wide variety of anti-war movements from Viet Nam to Iraq.

To return again to social media and technology. Traditionally, academics have published their work in academic journals and books, given lectures to classes and seminars, and presented papers to conferences. I am by no means a proponent of eliminating peer-review and rigorous oversight. On the contrary. However, the increasingly commodified way in which we publish our material, in particular the ways in which journals take free labor – paid for, in fact, by universities – and convert this labor into large profits, should make us consider some alternative venues for publication and public discourse. We should attempt to take advantage of the public channels available to us, in addition to the increasing number of open-access journals.

When my daughter enters university in 2027, I hope that the intellectual stimulation that I have been able to participate in might be made available to a broader population.  As you have noted by now, my talk today has not been about my current research, but it is, nevertheless, linked to my work. I simply wished to take this opportunity, during my installation speech, to  restate my hope that when my daughter enters university in 16 years that there will be many public professors, and that critical intellectual discourse, whether it be distributed by social media, or whatever form of communication is the norm at that time, is widespread and accepted.

Our society, as it become more and more commodified, is in dire need of open critical discussion about the underlying nature of that society, and the potential impacts of commodification upon socio-political structures. We need only look to the political systems in the US and Europe to see the detrimental impact of commodification upon the democratic process . The same is even more true in relation to the media systems in these two regions of the world.  While entertainment is an important element of our daily life, we are also in need of open, critical information and debate. If the media, or other institutions of society, cannot or will not provide us with such debate, then, at least in part in 2027, it is my hope that the university and its employees will contribute to a broader critical intellectual discourse, and to do so through  any and all technological means necessary.

Let me conclude with another quote from Chomsky, written 45 years ago, but as relevant today as it was then:

Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us. The responsibilities of intellectuals, then, are much deeper than what Macdonald calls the “responsibility of people,” given the unique privileges that intellectuals enjoy.

Talk on WikiLeaks to the Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit (November 13, 2011)

I will be giving a talk on WikiLeaks (on November 13) to the Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit to be held in Gothenburg from November 11-13, 2011.

“WikiLeaks, Whistleblowing and the Mainstream Audience”

While a fractured relationship between WikiLeaks and mainstream media organizations has made for interesting debates over questions of journalistic codes of conduct, transparency and whistleblowing, it is worth considering how this change impacts the spread of information to what can loosely be called a “mainstream audience”. In this talk, Christian Christensen argues that though editors and journalists might disagree with the terminology, the newspapers previously working with Assange acted as efficient distribution arms for WikiLeaks. In exchange for access to rare, sensitive material, the papers provided research, write-ups and distribution. There were alternative venues that could have been chosen for distribution (such as progressive radical newspapers and websites), but these do not have the organizational structure and market clout to have the impact WikiLeaks (and presumably the whistleblowers) wanted. With the current acrimonious relationship between Assange and major mainstream media outlets (particularly The Guardian and New York Times), the issue now is where WikiLeaks will turn for collaboration? If collaboration is even on their agenda.

Research Grant from Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research

I am pleased to announce that the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS) has awarded 2.7 million Skr  (€300,000/$425,000) in support of our project, The Social Journalist: News Work and News Organizations in an Age of Networked Sociality. The project, based at the Department of Informatics and Media Uppsala University, involving Professor Christian Christensen (Uppsala), Professor Monika Djerf-Pierre (Gothenburg University) and Professor Miyase Christensen (Karlstad University), will run from 2012 through 2014.

Project Abstract: The explosive spread of “social media” such as blogs, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook has been well-documented in popular media and academia. To date, most research has come in the form of broad, general surveys on who is using social networking sites, and what is being produced. Few studies have addressed the motivations behind the use of social media within specific work/organizational settings, and the broader professional, organizational implications of such use. This lack of concrete data has led to a great deal of theorizing about the social media and social networking phenomena that is not backed up by empirical support. The nature of social networking sites, as places where both professional products and personal information are freely and openly shared, creates new opportunities for professional networking, as well as new possibilities for the surveillance of employees and employers. The proposed project will be a study into news/journalistic work, journalism as a profession and the role of journalism in contemporary society, and the relationship between social media/social networking, individual agency and social capital , thus allowing for a re-theorization of news work and media organizations.

Communication Review special issue: “Twitter Revolutions? Addressing Social Media and Dissent”

A special issue of the Communication Review for which I was guest editor has just been published electronically. Details below…

The Communication Review
Volume 14, Issue 3, 2011
Special Issue: Twitter Revolutions? Addressing Social Media and Dissent

Guest Editor: Christian Christensen

Introduction: Twitter Revolutions? Addressing Social Media and Dissent
Christian Christensen

The Agonistic Social Media: Cyberspace in the Formation of Dissent and Consolidation of State Power in Postelection Iran
Babak Rahimi

Alternative Media and Social Networking Sites: The Politics of Individuation and Political Participation
Natalie Fenton & Veronica Barassi

Social Media and the Organization of Collective Action: Using Twitter to Explore the Ecologies of Two Climate Change Protests
Alexandra Segerberg & W. Lance Bennett

When Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Regime Responses to the Political Uses of Social Media
Philip N. Howard, Sheetal D. Agarwal & Muzammil M. Hussain

Discourses of Technology and Liberation: State Aid to Net Activists in an Era of “Twitter Revolutions”
Christian Christensen

WikiLeaks: Losing Suburbia

(The following has been published as an Open Access article by Le Monde Diplomatique.)

WikiLeaks: Losing Suburbia

By Christian Christensen

The release by WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of raw, unedited US embassy cables this week has resulted in a firestorm of criticism from a broad range of international media organizations and journalists. Most notably, WikiLeaks’ former collaborators – The Guardian, the New York Times, Der Speigel and El Pais – took the unusual step of issuing a joint statement condemning what they considered to be an irresponsible and potentially dangerous act on the part of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks organization.  Similarly, citing the practical impossibility of scanning through 250,000 cables to find and redact the names of sources who could be compromised by exposure, Reporters Without Borders decided to temporarily suspend their WikiLeaks mirror site.

Many of the articles and web postings devoted to the story have addressed Wikileaks’ professional and ethical responsibility vis-à-vis their whistleblowing sources and the individuals named in the files. This focus is understandable, as the protection of sources is the cornerstone of professional journalism. Any person or organization who leaks sensitive information is looking for two things: maximum exposure of the information leaked for maximum impact, and minimum exposure and risk for themselves as whistleblowers. The function of WikiLeaks was to provide both: exposure through the fame and reputation of the website (resulting in, for example, contacts with major media outlets), and the elimination of risk through strict encryption and security routines. When WikiLeaks cannot provide either one of these, it simply falls apart.

While a fractured relationship between WikiLeaks and mainstream media organizations has made for interesting debates over questions of journalistic codes of conduct, transparency and whistleblowing, it is also worth considering how this potential divorce will impact the spread of explosive material on US foreign activities to what can loosely be called a “mainstream audience”. Though editors and journalists might disagree with the terminology, the newspapers previously working with Assange acted as efficient distribution arms for WikiLeaks. In exchange for access to rare, sensitive material, the papers provided research, write-ups and distribution. As I noted in an earlier piece on WikiLeaks, there were, of course, alternative venues they could have chosen for distribution (such as progressive radical newspapers and websites), but these do not have the organizational structure and market clout to have the impact WikiLeaks (and presumably the whistleblowers) wanted.

With the current acrimonious relationship between Assange and major mainstream media outlets (particularly The Guardian and New York Times), the issue now is where WikiLeaks will turn for collaboration – if collaboration is even on their agenda. Working with newspapers such as the Guardian, New York Times, Der Speigel and El Pais opened up the mainstream market to WikiLeaks material that could likely have remained within the realm of the alternative and radical media. This is not to say that alternative media outlets are not important actors for those interested in real democratic change. On the contrary, radical newspapers and magazines are often the only outlets willing to raise critical voices in the face of massive political and corporate pressure.

This having been said, one need only think of the “Collateral Murder” video released by WikiLeaks (showing the killing of scores of innocent Iraqi civilians), and the widespread media coverage given to the clip, to understand the role played by mainstream news outlets in reaching a broader audience. In my own research, I looked at hundreds of videos posted to YouTube not unlike the one released by WikiLeaks.  Many of these clips received a fair amount of exposure in the alternative press, yet were not widely known amongst the general public, and did not become issues of national debate and scrutiny. In other words, while WikiLeaks material is tailor-made for the critical eye of the alternative press, the political economy of most capitalist media systems means that these alternative outlets, and their contents, are de facto marginalized.  While a deal with mainstream newspapers could be seen as a Faustian bargain for WikiLeaks, it was a deal that Assange was willing to make, probably because it would enable access to a sizeable chunk of citizens not part of the core of WikiLeaks lovers (who follow the organization no matter what) or haters (who detest WikiLeaks no matter what).

As a researcher, it struck me that the period shortly after the release of the “Collateral Murder” video, the “Afghanistan War Logs” and the “Iraq War Logs” illustrated the potential impact of the WikiLeaks-mainstream media collaboration. This was a rare and exciting (albeit short) period of political, professional and cultural introspection, particularly in the United States. US foreign policy and military spending, civilian deaths and possible war crimes in Iraq, journalistic under-performance after 9/11, and government transparency were all thrust into the open as topics for consideration. And, during this period, the issues contained in the leaks garnered as much attention as did the WikiLeaks organization, something that happens now with less and less frequency.

It appeared, during this short time, that WikiLeaks may have done something that I had thought near impossible: inserting a radical critique of US military and geo-political power into mainstream popular discourse (particularly in the US). Granted, The Guardian and New York Times are not the newspapers of choice for many in the US and UK. Far from it. Yet the very presence of the material on their front pages opened up the possibility that, in light of the breadth of the popular exposure of the leaked material, the murky world of US power might now be forced to concede ground to transparency advocates. The current fight between WikiLeaks and their former mainstream partners by no means signals the death of this possibility, and these newspapers need not collaborate directly with WikiLeaks in order to use the information they provide. But it is reasonable to wonder whether the fight may have a negative impact on how those in the political center-ground will come to view WikiLeaks and their material.

In the fight against the abuse of power, the suburbs matter.

Christian Christensen is Professor of Media and Communication Studies in the Department of Informatics and Media at Uppsala University, Sweden. email: christian.christensen@im.uu.se; Twitter: @chrchristensen