1. Blegvad 1
Emily Blegvad
Dr. Yan
English 2367.01
9 December 2016
WikiLeaks and the Legitimacy of the Fifth Estate
True, authentic and unaltered information in today’s society can be very hard to come by,
especially when the government you live by, whether it is renowned or not, is likely very
corrupt. For whom is it to say whether a certain piece of information is authentic or not? Does
the information correctly and fairly portray the truthfulness of its topic or subject? Politics and
media on television and embedded into our social media is a multifaceted aspect of the American
society. There is certainly plenty of bias in every corner but, unfortunately, it continues to remain
in a corner of American society that is constantly analyzed and contested.
The news establishment’s ways of disclosing information in America is an ever-growing
complex which is questioned every day. It is the purpose of this research to scrutinize and
interpret the causes for such biases in a specific organization. This research looks at the
psychology behind the cultural differences of the American public by looking at the claimed
authenticity of the “truth telling” WikiLeaks and the culture of information classification.
WikiLeaks claims to, “specialize in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or
otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption” (WikiLeaks).
However, founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is wanted by the United States
government, as well as many other foreign governments for exposing secrets and otherwise
classified materials of the United States. These exposed secrets and classified materials have not
only hurt many politicians’ agendas, but have also exposed to the public these dishonest agendas.
So the question is, being such an important aspect of everyday life in the twenty-first century

2. Blegvad 2
with a twenty-four-hour news cycle, is WikiLeaks truly what their founder claims it to be: “an
intelligence agency of the people” for the people? (We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks).
The purpose of WikiLeaks is to obtain and distribute, or “leak”, the exact documents of
governments and politicians to expose their secretive doings to the public. This, in terms of
WikiLeaks, is seen as a checks and balances system that promotes full transparency
(WikiLeaks). However, it is the question of whether WikiLeaks does this in a malicious way to
further their personal organizational agenda, as well as Assange’s agenda, or whether they are
trying to actually achieve what they so rightfully claim to be doing. The information that
WikiLeaks provides, as well as the claimed “uncorrupt”, “transparent” and “pure” leadership of
WikiLeaks is what is contested about the organization’s authenticity. What is important to see is
that WikiLeaks seeks to be an entity that eventually eliminates itself through exposing corrupt
individuals and governments. However, it is contested because it is believed that WikiLeaks and
its leader, Julian Assange, are corrupt as well, and have their own agendas while hiding behind
the mask of being an organization dedicated to radical transparency worldwide. Therefore, the
question is, is it perhaps because these individuals are affected by the information released by
WikiLeaks, or because they truly believe that WikiLeaks is releasing legitimate information?
Trust in one’s government is an entity that WikiLeaks claims to try to restore by
providing full transparency throughout society. “In Search of Authenticity: Public Trust and the
News Media” by Richard Harwood peers into how public trust plays such an important role in
allowing citizens to fully grasp what the media is trying to persuade. Harwood mentions that
there is an ever increasing level of pessimism in the public trust of the media. This is crucial
because WikiLeaks is actively seeking to reveal all of the hidden information that the public is
not being told. It is first important to understand issues that are important to the individual.

3. Blegvad 3
However, a woman that Harwood interviews about citizens’ trust of the government mentions
that, “the complexity of issues isn’t addressed” (Harwood 12). When complexity is missing,
according to this woman, “there are excluded voices. She went on to ask, “Who isn’t heard
from? What isn’t addressed? [There are] people who are invisible” (Harwood 12). These
opinions imply that many Americans are frustrated with their current news media and
government, as it seems to have a very unfair and secretive bias that most citizens are swayed by.
This could be a reason of perhaps why there has been such an influx of whistle-blowing
hacktivists, such as Julian Assange with WikiLeaks. The American government has been
seemingly building up its secretiveness as other countries gain more power in the world and pose
a threat to an array of sensitive aspects in American society. Harwood’s article delves deeper into
this issue with further interviews about the media and authenticity. Harwood mentions that media
culture is, “a culture of greed” (Harwood 13), pursuing that media is all about the profits that
news organizations obtain. WikiLeaks, however, is a media source that is sponsored by hundreds
of news corporations, and started out as a very small group started by Julian Assange in 2006. To
Harwood, accuracy in news reporting is equivalent to authenticity, and that is exactly what
WikiLeaks “strives” to provide; official documents that prove that what the public is being told
is either flat out wrong, or distrustful. This source develops the understanding because it allows
us to see how there is an ever increasing level of pessimism in the public’s trust of all media.
This is crucial because WikiLeaks is actively seeking to reveal all of the hidden information that
the public is not being told. It is first important to understand issues that are important to the
individual. Harwood’s explanation of authenticity is what this research wants to promote, and
what this paper uses to analyze the legitimacy of WikiLeaks.

4. Blegvad 4
People are using the exact documents and statements that WikiLeaks releases to judge
their opinions on whether or not WikiLeaks is an authentic organization. Many, especially
political elites and the media, have used WikiLeaks to stir up the public about information and to
make WikiLeaks look like it is a bad entity. “The WikiLeaks War on America: The Strange
Political Coloration of Julian Assange” by Johnathan Foreman discusses a brief history of
WikiLeaks and some conflicts that have arrived with Julian Assange and his claim that
WikiLeaks is truly an authentic and transparent whistle-blowing organization. Foreman delves
into the psychology of Assange and attempts to depict why Assange and his counterparts expose
specific governments for specific crimes, in WikiLeaks’s case, especially the United States
government. Foreman quotes Assange, “He who controls the Internet servers controls the
intellectual record of mankind, and by controlling that, controls our perceptions of who we are,
and by controlling that, controls what laws and what regulations we make in society” (Foreman
28). Foreman essentially analyzes Assange’s decision making in why he only works to expose
certain regimes and secrets. This therefore illustrates the masked slyness and secretiveness of
WikiLeaks and Assange. This agrees directly with Fenster, who explains, “Information
transforms; therefore, it must be disclosed” (Fenster 756). Foreman further explains Assange’s
reclusiveness as, “Assange himself was living a cloak-and-dagger, semi-fugitive existence,
sleeping on floors and communicating only through disposable mobile phones or online. It may
therefore be no surprise that WikiLeaks itself functions like a private version of the intelligence
organizations he hates and fears (Foreman 31). This article allows the reader to further recognize
Assange’s motives, as well as the danger and legal risks that WikiLeaks providers face by
providing such information. WikiLeaks has released information about U.S. intelligence and
tactics used at Guantanamo Bay, the Afghan War Diaries, the Democratic National Committee

5. Blegvad 5
emails, and the Podesta Emails regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategies and insider
information that the campaign received “illegally”. Whether many of these examples are
authentic or not, they have been engrained into the public’s subconscious, and will continue to be
accepted, contested and debated by all in today’s society.
What is at stake in determining the authenticity of WikiLeaks along with all other media
outlets is the legitimacy or truthfulness of the information that is provided, which therefore
furthers the public’s consensus on the largest issues our world faces. It is important for
individuals to deem this authentic or inauthentic because it is claiming its authenticity of
information, yet it is doing it in a specific way to hurt certain people, not all people. WikiLeaks
claims to bring answers to all people for all wrongdoings, yet only one side of the story is only
heard in many cases.
WikiLeaks has been very well known for releasing classified information and stories that
come primarily from cable within and regarding the United States with the help from members
of the fourth estate (professional journalists). “Leaking Superpower: WikiLeaks and the
Contradictions of Democracy” by Jan Nederveen Pieterse reveals the criticisms of the WikiLeaks
disclosures of US diplomatic cables, which further shows the bias in relation to transparency and
democracy. This article discusses what the criticisms of the WikiLeaks disclosures reveal.
Essentially, WikiLeaks represents, “the largest set of confidential documents ever released into
the public domain” (Pieterse 1911). With such a whistle-blowing truth telling community comes
endorsements with the help of major newspapers: The Guardian, New York Times, Le Monde in
France, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in German, WikiLeaks is worldwide, and is very hard
to suppress due to the first Amendment and outstanding support of transparency. However,
Pieterse notes that, “Washington’s initial official response to the disclosures was that there was a

6. Blegvad 6
major breach of security and classified information. The rules of openness did not apply in this
case … because the information was ‘stolen’” (Pieterse 1912). Further, Pieterse mentions that
after the initial response, news of leaks to the establishment became almost normal monotonous
every day news. “In main-stream media, particularly in the USA, the responses to the WikiLeaks
disclosures ranged from trivialization to indignation – decrying them as vandalism or as acts of
cyber-terrorism” (Peterise 1912). An interesting argument that the author makes is that U.S.
agencies,
“routinely tap internet and mobile phone networks across the world for intelligence
gathering and to stealthily obtain biometric information … and thus steal information.
The difference is that WikiLeaks is a non-state actor and the information is released into
the public domain; the former is deemed theft, the latter vandalism” (Pieterse 1912).
Pieterse questions the “obedience and disobedience” of both the United States and
WikiLeaks, which therefore leads us to question why WikiLeaks is at the forefront of attention to
foreign governments and the public when it comes to releasing classified materials. Is it because
they are considered to be a real threat to the wellbeing of democratic governments, or simply a
minor annoyance to others? Marechal also gives specific quotes and examples of Washington
elites practically calling Assange and WikiLeaks a disgrace to modern society,
“Sarah Palin called Assange ‘an anti-American operative with blood on his hands,” and
asked why he wasn’t being “pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and
Taliban leaders.’ Republican Congressman Peter King ‘called on Washington to pursue
aggressively WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange for violating the Espionage Act,” and Senator
Joe Lieberman called the leaks ‘outrageous, reckless and despicable’” (Marechal 98).
Pieterse deems this negative framing of WikiLeaks of the media as a double standard. Pieterse
claims, “What are at issue are the political culture and the politics of impunity. Because it
involves mainstream media and appeals to public sensibilities this may be termed hegemonic
populism” (Pieterse 1917). Pieterse speaks more of the transparency of WikiLeaks as the

7. Blegvad 7
organization has fallen victim to many criticisms. Pieterse reflects, “some criticisms may reflect
disinformation and a smear campaign against Assange; some may reflect faulty judgement on the
part of an organization under pressure, a small organization that handles large concerns and data
flows … it has been criticized for being ‘a typical SPO [Single Person Organization]’, for lack of
transparency in its funding and for ‘secrecy in this way of making-things-public’” (Pieterse
1919). Through Pieterse’s given information, it can be concluded that WikiLeaks is certainly
plotted against by mainstream media and foreign and domestic governments due to the real
danger that they pose by releasing the good, the bad, and the ugly sides of the inner workings of
federal government whether they be authentic or not.
Like Pieterse’s article, “WikiLeaks and the Public Sphere: Dissent and Control in
Cyberworld” by Marechal looks at the controversy of WikiLeaks in the public eye through
analyzing, as Marechal explains, “competing discourses that are informing the debate about
privacy and transparency on the Internet” (Marechal 93). One aspect about this article that differs
from the previous articles, however, is that it gives many more examples of what Washington
elites, American citizens, as well as long-time acquaintances of Julian Assange think of
WikiLeaks. As Assange and WikiLeaks gained public notice, and with the help of many
mainstream media sources, Assange made a few personal friends with whom he shared the same
goal. Marechal mentions Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a colleague of Assange, who says, “even as he
[Assange] portrays himself as a radical transparency activist, Assange’s actions belie a fierce
commitment to protecting his own privacy” (Marechal 98). Marechal successfully defends the
argument that when WikiLeaks teamed up with the five news agencies to help prepare the
obtained documents for publishing, many of the “seasoned investigative journalists struggled to
make sense of the half-million records in their possession” (Marechal 100). This is where the

8. Blegvad 8
question comes in of quantity over quality. How could one man, and a few of his colleagues, be
deemed credible with providing the public with the truth? A thing that WikiLeaks is prone to
doing is releasing personal information of individuals in the released classified documents,
which could then put them in danger, but Assange claims that redacting the information would
harm the integrity of the archives. There is no evidence that anyone has been hurt by the names
and information published by WikiLeaks, but many could and still can be hurt for being
informants. Assange’s refusal to redact has also made the United States government deflect
attention from the evidence of possible war crimes by claiming that Mr. Assange has blood on
his hands for releasing the names. Marechal continues to look at how WikiLeaks was portrayed
by differing media outlets. This article is very helpful when trying to understand the overall
consensus of WikiLeaks as a whole due to the compilation and analyzation of a wide spectrum of
sources. By providing personal information about Assange and the personal relationships that he
had with other hacktivists, we can better understand that WikiLeaks has been a struggling
organization with not a lot of credibility or public renown, but surprises with outstanding
capability to expose the “illegal” doings of the most powerful governments in the free world.
With such information that Marechal’s article brings comes further information from
Curran and Gibson’s “WikiLeaks, Anarchism and Technologies of Dissent”. The reaction of
WikiLeaks, they explain that this article,
“looks into WikiLeaks as a claimed “anarchist” organization, as well as how technology and the
creation of cyberspace has drastically changed the way that we perceive the world. “While the
nature, scope and implications of this “re-shaping” is highly contested, both within anarchist
thought and society more broadly, most agree that these technologies have shaped the contours
of economic, social and political life” (Curran and Gibson 295).
Unlike the other articles, Curran and Gibson’s article seeks to fully synthesize why WikiLeaks is
seen an anarchical association, and distinguishes between the two consensuses of the government

9. Blegvad 9
(WikiLeaks’ enemy) and much of the public of whom are WikiLeaks supporters. The authors
note that, “the broad intention of these labels is to delegitimize the WikiLeaks project by
invoking a negative and antisocial characterization of anarchism” (Curran and Gibson 306).
They also suggest that, “the eschewing of an anarchical identity by both Assange and WikiLeaks
is a conscious tactic designed to conceal the organization’s more radical goals” (Curran and
Gibson 306). The authors further this argument through providing information that,
“WikiLeaks has consciously moved towards a more closed system where decisions
regarding content are made exclusively by people within the organization itself and the
analytical work done by professionals brought in for that sole purpose … In the hope of
renewing public attention to leaked documents, WikiLeaks staff thus began restricting the
flow of source material and selecting what was to be released” (Curran and Gibson 309).
This very popular act of informational gatekeeping in turn brings together the confused
consensus of WikiLeaks’ legitimacy as well as the true authenticity of the organization itself,
along with its “editor-in-chief”, Julian Assange.
The documentary film, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks delves into the story of
WikiLeaks from the beginning; back to when hacking was a new phenomenon, and when Julian
Assange was a teenager growing up in Australia. Like Marechal’s article, the documentary
interviews Washington elites, former popular hackers who had connection with Assange, as well
as former “employees” of WikiLeaks. The film especially focuses on the case of Bradley
Manning, who turned in thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents from the
United States Government to WikiLeaks, and Assange’s decision as to leak the documents via
WikiLeaks or not after Manning’s arrest. The documentary also focuses on how the sensitive
documents released by WikiLeaks, especially the Iraq and Afghan war logs, could get American
interests into trouble overseas, as many civilians were identifiable through the documents. The
film furthers the story of Assange as what the WikiLeaks founder deems a “smear campaign”

10. Blegvad 10
broke out against him in Sweden. At this time, Assange became more paranoid than ever. The
United States was also investigating Assange and whether or not they could charge him with
violating the Espionage Act. Today, Assange is still wanted for questioning in Sweden about
rape charges, but it is believed that if he does go to Sweden, he will be arrested, or be handed
over to the United States and face the death penalty for releasing classified documents. The
documentary raises a very good question as to why Assange was almost always the target of the
authorities. Many other journalists aided Assange, as well as the major news media outlets
mentioned earlier in this review. Why weren’t they attacked as they are just as guilty in helping
with the WikiLeaks authentication process, as well as their own whistleblowing stories? This
further exposes the United States’ government obsession with Julian Assange as he is deemed,
whether it is stated or not, a very credible threat. The documentary insinuates that WikiLeaks has
become what it is and what it also detests, a secretive and opaque organization, which is also
hinted at in the other articles mentioned. Curran and Gibson’s article also bring up this topic,
alluding to, “if, as Assange claims, hierarchies and “patronage” networks are what warp the
autonomous human spirit, then it must be assumed that this entails “self-activity” alert to
authoritarian developments within his own organization. Paradoxically, these developments risk
WikiLeaks replicating aspects of the social order it seeks to transform” (Curran and Gibson 309).
However, like good scholars, all authors of the articles, including the documentary, provide both
sides of the story and allow the viewer to make their decision on how they perceive the very
mystifying culture of whistleblowing in the modern age.
As the battle between WikiLeaks and federal governments affect almost all informational
aspects of people’s lives, it is certainly not the only entity that produces the same reaction and
contestation of legitimacy. An example that shares the same authenticity principles as WikiLeaks

11. Blegvad 11
could be the mistrust of the African American community of the law enforcement establishment
due to racial profiling. Like WikiLeaks, America’s law enforcement is an institution that looks so
established and is obviously known for protecting (and sometimes not protecting) its citizens,
that there should not be a reason not to trust it. But due to the cynical American psyche, and
some wrongdoing on the enforcement establishment as well as by-standing citizen side of the
spectrum, there is always a conspiracy with negative opinions following that build around the
subject. Like WikiLeaks, a very well-renowned and controversial organization is known to
protect certain individuals, but also profile and expose their claimed “enemies”. Therefore, the
public trust of WikiLeaks and the police are questioned and contested, and hence, very similar in
theory. A second example could be the legitimacy of the FBI’s recent investigation into Hillary
Clinton, as well as the overall election of 2016 controversy regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The authentic claim that FBI Director Comey reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s
emails saying that her emails needed to be looked at again due to a belief that there may be
sufficient information, led to the fact that ultimately the FBI did not find any credible evidence.
This action illustrated by the FBI caused media shock that came days before election day. It has
been discussed that it likely cost, or at least affected, the election night results for the Presidency.
After the FBI and Comey came out with the remark, Comey promptly placed a Donald Trump
election sign in his front yard. As Director of the FBI, it is his/her duty to remain neutral in the
realms of politics, yet it was obvious that this entire stunt was likely done, not because there was
actually sufficient evidence, but because it was known that such a stunt would affect election
results and the support of Mrs. Clinton. This is similar to WikiLeaks for the reason that, like
Assange, Comey is using the power of his office, and access of certain information, to
manipulate the public for political gain, whether it be true or not. After the Democratic party’s

12. Blegvad 12
push to find out what exactly the FBI was looking at, the FBI came out and said that Hillary
Clinton was not at fault. But the name had already been said, and the damage already done.
Author Mark Fenster of “Disclosure’s Effects: WikiLeaks and Transparency” explains it simply:
“Western governments and societies are too complex and decentralized, their publics too
dispersed, and their information environments too saturated for transparency, by itself, to have
significant transformative potential. But one can remain committed to treating the conditions of a
more transparent state and world without simply assuming and asserting transparency’s utopian
effects” (Fenster 807).
All information under review in this research has proven very beneficial in providing
sufficient information on such confusing and interconnected topics. By carefully analyzing and
comparing these sources, we can understand more in depth the overall hacktivist culture that has
come into the public eye in the evolving generation of technology and enhanced intelligence. We
can also understand how WikiLeaks came to be, what it has sought to achieve, what differing
opinions surround the subject matter’s legitimacy, and how the practice of anonymous
whistleblowing has impacted the public, for better and for worse, in many cases. The
consequence of deciding whether or not to listen to this authenticity claim is the successful
comprehension and portrayal of factually correct information. Ultimately, the authenticity of
WikiLeaks matters because it affects the information cycle and the positive and negative
development of world civilizations through exposing information that is not meant for all eyes to
see. The use of authenticity claims in providing entities of authority and information seek the
same positive outcome, which is to create a safe, well informed, and transparent environment for
all. However, human kind will always doubt their surroundings, and create a contested consensus
among the population.
Does WikiLeaks provide the correct information that has been obtained and leaked from
political elites and governments? Many think so. But on the other hand, those elites and

13. Blegvad 13
governments deny the legitimacy of the releases. Does the FBI as well as perhaps other federal
agencies function under the use of political gain even though it is to remain a neutral entity under
the United States government? Due to single liberal and conservative cases respectively, it is
very viable that agencies function with a certain agenda in mind. Should the public trust the
established law enforcement men and women to protect the nation’s citizens regardless of race or
creed? Consequently, it is up to each individual to decide for themselves whether or not they
should trust the establishment, or, in other cases, the information of an organization that strives
and functions off of the whistle-blowing hacktivist culture.

14. Blegvad 14
Works Cited
We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks. Dir. Alex Gibney. Perf. Jullian Assange and Heather
Brooke. Focus World, 2013. DVD.
Curran, Giorel, and Morgan Gibson. “Wikileaks, Anarchism And Technologies Of Dissent.”
Antipode, vol. 45, no. 2, 2013, pp. 294-314. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct.
2016.
Fenster, Mark. “Disclosure's Effects: Wikileaks and Transparency.” Iowa Law Review, vol. 97,
no. 3, 2012, pp. 753-807. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.
Foreman, Jonathan. “The Wikileaks War On America.” Commentary, vol. 131, no. 1, 2011, pp.
27-31. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct. 2016.
Harwood, Richard C. “In Search of Authenticity: Public Trust and The News Media”. National
Civic Review, vol. 93, no. 3, 2004, pp. 11-15. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct.
2016.
Marechal, Nathalie. “Wikileaks And The Public Sphere: Dissent And Control In Cyberworld.”
International Journal Of Technology, Knowledge & Society, vol. 9, no. 3, 2013, pp. 93-
106. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Leaking Superpower: Wikileaks And The Contradictions Of
Democracy.” Third World Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 10, 2012, pp. 1909-1924. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

15. Blegvad 15