Inadequate Journalism Needs WikiLeaks

After the release of 250,000 diplomatic documents on Nov. 28 and the commotion generated in the media by WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has exposed the need to improve journalism.

James Moore, writer for the Huffington Post, explained in his article the reason why he denies the fact that Assanges' "leaks" and "incorrectness" generated the governmental outrage seen throughout the media.

"There is a very simple reason WikiLeaks has sent a furious storm of outrage across the globe: the public is uninformed because of inadequate journalism," Moore said.

By inadequate journalism, Moore refers to the lack of details on government news reports, the lack of objectivity in the newsroom and the lack of coverage on international matters; all contributing to the delay of information for people who often ask themselves "how did such messes end up being such messes?".

"If journalism were functioning at appropriate levels, there would have been stories that contained information leaked in the cables now published around the globe," Moore said.

Moore argues that journalism will soon become even more endangered, thus, he believes WikiLeaks has the potential to become the source of information capable of inquiring upon secret government endeavors and challenging government pressure.

This is certainly an important moment for journalism as many oppose WikiLeaks' actions, while others strongly support its objectives.

If WikiLeaks had not been created and all the leaked documents and videos had been given directly to news organizations, it would be interesting to know how many of them would actually accept or reject to publish such controversial documents.

As a mere opinion, I really don't think the New York Times, the Guardian, or any other well-known news organization would like to face the same issues Wikileaks is facing.