WikiLeaks, the website run by Julian Assange, may have influenced the outcome of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election due to several factors such as the overconfidence of the Democrats and the anger of voters. Wikileaks is responsible for exposing classified government documents from countries across the globe. Prior to the election, they released numerous emails pertaining to Clinton’s campaign in an attempt to successfully elect President elect Trump. WikiLeaks actions are controversial, as they acquire their intelligence through illegitimate sources and illegal hacks in order to expose classified government documents.

The argument for WikiLeaks’ justification of its actions is government transparency. However, it is not an obligation of an unsponsored private website to decide what the public needs to know. WikiLeaks has, in the past, released classified government documents that could have threatened national security of various nations. On one hand, the American public has a right to know everything about the interworkings of this election from both parties, but that’s why we have campaign finance laws. On the other hand, it should be the responsibility of voters to educate themselves on candidates and whether or not they are trustworthy.

WikiLeaks chose to release the Democratic National Convention emails with only a few days left before the election, so it most likely did not persuade voters one way or another. WikiLeaks has never been justified in its decision to release classified information. They believe they are helping the public by releasing personal emails, but they continue to create a larger consensus of mistrust in our government. I support government transparency, but it is the duty of the public to educate itself on elements of electoral politics before they vote, without to listening to WikiLeaks.

Government transparency is a good thing, but there are occasions when officials have to choose to release information that could either help or hinder the public or that could potentially become a national security risk. WikiLeaks officials believed that they did the right thing by releasing DNC emails prior to the election, but only time will tell if they choose to release classified information that they believe will help the public good when in reality, it could endanger American lives. WikiLeaks is involved in the distribution of classified information in an attempt to open governments, but it subsequently neglects national security concerns. 

4 COMMENTS

  1. This was an attempt to influence the election……….the leaks stopped the day after. What other reason would there be. Did he run out of information? I don’t think so, he ran out of reasons. I hope they “lock him up”.

  2. We need the truth to make good decisions. Transparency doesn’t mean, the government can’t have secrets. It means, corruption is exposed. It’s common sense. There is no proof, anyone got significantly hurt because of what, WikiLeaks published. WikiLeaks publishes for maximum impact because, that makes sense. Why would we want, corruption to be exposed and nothing to get done about it. They timed the releases to bring down corruption. If WikiLeaks wanted to influence the election, they would have pushed for Jill Stein who, works for First Amendment. WikiLeaks is not a Trump supporter. They expose corruption, to defend our rights and make the world better. Journalism publishes stolen info all the time, to hold significant corruption in check. That is why they have more freedom of speech rights like, they don’t have to reveal sources. WikiLeaks has broken no laws. Propaganda is detering from the corruption by, blaming the source, that exposed corruption. The problem is not the source. The problem is the corruption.

    • What good are campaign finance laws if everyone in power circumvent them. No enforcement of law is as good as no law.

  3. The problem is not the source. The problem is the corruption.

    It still concerns me that this fundamental truth is not acknowledged by the press or so called journalists.

    It the very fundamental aspect of objective truth telling in journalism to never question source when considering any news.

    its really a sad state of affairs with “modern hacking” referring to itself as journalism on american, and elsewhere.

    this is a dangerous situation we find our world in. where innuendo, hyperbole, and factless opinions trump real reporting of facts.

    very dangerous. and stupid.

Leave a Reply