The Galleon - Portsmouth's Official Student Newspaper

Earlier this week Panorama filmed an episode on WikiLeaks; The Secret Story. I have always been a fan of Panorama-styled programmes, including Channel 4’s Dispatches. Both programmes appear to be an attempt to save public communication and the information used is usually factual and statistical. However, last weeks episode, WikiLeaks: The Secret Story lost my respect for Panorama. The secret story on WikiLeaks was an unsubtle attempt by the BBC to put the public off the WikiLeaks organisation altogether, in doing so the programme victimised founder Julian Assange, portraying him as a both a rapist and a fraudist, neither of which are relevant in the investigation of WikiLeaks, nor have they been proved.

The BBC being funded by the British public seeks to represent the public voice. In other words, the BBC maintain a responsibility towards us, the licence fee payers, and as the main body of public communication, the channel must equally represent the voice of the British public. The role of the public service broadcaster is to provide unbiased and impartial news to the British population. Aside from Al-Jazeera, which is also a controversial topic in the west, WikiLeaks lies amongst the few sources the public currently have which can provide objective, simple, and factual information to the mass public on the global scale. Ironically, this is the role the BBC claim to maintain, however, this particular episode was undeniably biased. The secret story discredited founder Julian Assange for all he has made explicit, in attempt to lose him public support. However, numerous reviews, and articles published the following day, suggests the BBC’s lame attempt at mimicking the government in its anti WikiLeaks stance was unsuccessful, with critics all round claiming the programme was a disappointment.

The panorama documentary presented by John Sweeney, award winning journalist and author, claimed to be the BBC’s assessment in discussing what ‘WikiLeaks and its exposing on sensitive official material has achieved’. The BBC poses that the organisation have become ‘paranoid about leaks from within, and have thus failed to live up to their own ideals on openness’. The episode, however, rarely discussed what WikiLeaks has overall achieved, instead targeting the organisation by interviewing Assange’s former right hand man Daniel donsheit-berg, who was fired in 2010. Secondly The Guardian was incorporated into the debate claiming Assange stated that Afghan informants deserved to be exposed and murdered for aiding NATO, while the American government claimed Assange had endangered lives, and that their many sources were now in prison, otherwise fearing for their lives. The programme however, provided a lack of evidence to support any claims. Former employee Birgitta Johndottir described Assange as ‘having an incredibly high IQ with a remarkably low EQ (emotional intelligence)’ while Panorama portrayed Assange as emotionless, selfish, and sneaky.

It is no surprise that Julian refused to make an appearance on Panorama. After all, the entire programme was built up of his ex-employees, and already carried a bias which was towards him, his efforts would be wasted. The BBC framed his decision to not come on the show as a reason for further speculation, implying the mass public should maintain a vigilant and apprehensive attitude towards WikiLeaks. In my opinion, the BBC’s documentary followed the government in its anti WikiLeaks stance, portraying the organisation as threatening, and as an abuse of power. In reality it is in fact the complete opposite, Assange claims to have founded WikiLeaks in an attempt to show the world how power is abused, and typically western governments see this as a threat.

This content is one individual's opinion and does not represent the opinion of The Galleon. If you disagree with this article or have any further comment to make please email letters@galleonnews.com.