I've mentioned a couple times before that I think WikiLeaks' "full disclosure" ideology is irresponsible and puts American lives at risk, and that pragmatism is important when dealing with this stuff. Wikileaks' defenders call it "journalism" and simply assert that transparency is always good.
I'd like to posit that the following is an example of why this is completely false:
"WikiLeaks has published a secret U.S. diplomatic cable listing locations abroad that the U.S. considers vital to its national security, prompting criticism that the website is inviting terrorist attacks on American interests."
can someone give me ONE good reason why this type of transparency helps people? Except for maybe Iran, North Korea and Al Qaeda, who benefits from this?
I'd also like to point out that (at least according to my went-to-Medill-and-is-an-actual-journalist cousin) a cornerstone of journalistic ethics is that you don't publish things that threaten national security.