PELSTER: Internet information revolution still requires scrutiny

A few months back I stumbled onto a Web post detailing possible corporate sabotage and conspiracy. Major movie studios were supposedly meeting in secret to develop a plan to bring down Netflix, whose movie rental service has been cutting into DVD and BluRay sales. It was an interesting read, but I had all but forgotten it until a couple months later, when Netflix made a major announcement in January of this year:

All Warner Bros. new releases would be delayed for 28 days before being mailed to Netflix customers. All I could think was, "Wow, anonymous Internet poster was right," and then I became angry towards Warner Bros. The company chose not to make a product more interesting, compelling and worth my money to purchase rather than rent, and instead stalled my ability to watch their movies for four weeks.

This tiny bit of "insider" information hardly changes the world, but pulled back the curtain to see the dirty way businesses make deals. Without the Internet I might have suspected these things happen, but never actually known the details.

This was my first encounter with WikiLeaks.org, a freelance media organization out of Iceland specializing in releasing secret government and corporate documents obtained from anonymous sources. The site's members are nonprofit whistle-blowers who can publish materials regular media outlets cannot and can challenge the definitions of free speech and public access to the Internet.

The site made The New York Times in mid-March after a recent classified CIA document detailing the Administration's need to sell Europeans on the war in Afghanistan was released. The report, curiously entitled Why Counting on Apathy May Not Be Enough, details ways the CIA plans to manipulate public opinion in those countries, including using president Obama's Nobel Peace Prize winning popularity in Europe, saying they might be "sensitive [to his] disappointment [if they] do not help."

It was this week, however, when WikiLeaks made its biggest splash in the mainstream media with a 16-minute clip titled "Collateral Murder," a 2007 video from an Army helicopter in Baghdad depicting the death and injury of possible insurgents, Reuters media members and civilians by American forces. While the gunner was not intentionally killing innocent bystanders, some of his actions were not completely within the rules of engagement, which are in place to avoid potential disasters such as this one.

A cover up of the incident followed, military and government officials lied to the press about the details, and now, nearly three years later, it is back in the news — an embarrassment to the country and those of us who served overseas.

Our government, along with North Korea, China, Russia and others, has considered banning WikiLeaks.org from the public, and numerous corporations have attempted to sue and block them as well. Yet they survive, sustained by donations from readers and a small scattering of news organizations around the world.

Various media personnel and columnists have called WikiLeaks a new evolution in the freedom of press. By not being attached to any one organization, and only releasing documents and facts, the staff can separate themselves from corporate interests and political favors, such as exclusive interviews or being the first to receive breaking news. Just look at the war between Fox News and the Obama administration last fall, when Fox was excluded from certain privileges for being critical of the president. By being able to post information it should never have had in the first place while protecting its sources, WikiLeaks is able to uniquely circumvent this problem.

However, it is not quite the next evolutionary step many believe it to be. The video posted front page of the WikiLeaks Web site is a highly edited version of a much longer tape, with arrows and subtitles pointing out the reporters for the viewer, a benefit of foresight the military personnel in action did not have. There is also a slow motion and enlarged piece pointing out two children in a van before it was shot up, again, impossible to detect in the full and unedited version.

The founders of the site had to edit and sensationalize the video to garner more attention, and therefore receive more funds. This might be necessary for them to survive, but it puts serious doubts into their credibility. The video is bad enough without them having to put a spin on it.

Regardless, as the public, we should demand the existence of sites like WikiLeaks. But as media evolves, we as consumers have to, as well. The information released has the ability to fuel angry mobs, but everything still has to be taken into context and understood that without identified sources, it could be fake and intended to smear the accused. We have to prove we can handle this information without breaking down as a society.

The "Collateral Murder" video might be horrendous to watch, but war has always been ugly and does not change because we have an increasingly endless ability to see it every day. The initial feeling might be to overreact, but that creates a dangerous precedent. War is still a necessary evil. Failing to act because of a very regrettable handful of incidents could be equally as harmful for the protection of Americans and the oppressed worldwide when the time comes to make those difficult decisions.

Similarly, a report incriminating a business for something that sounds unethical should not ignite a witch hunt or fuel a mob. I may join a "Never buy Warner Bros. Movies Again" page on Facebook, but it is still important to realize this is the way business works. It does not mean the capitalist system is broken or people should be fired, but the added information gives consumers power to make more informed decisions as to who gets their money. If enough people were to join my hypothetical group, WB's under-the-table dealings might cost them as much as the original problem did in the first place, forcing them to create a product actually worth buying.