Cablegate gift keeps on giving

Beyond the fact it is the gift that keeps giving, there is something about WikiLeaks that is very much in keeping with the seasonal spirit.

As a small vulnerable organisation exposing the secrets of the US government it taps into one of the great narratives of Western myth-making, where the world is turned upside down, the mighty "cast down from their thrones", "the lowly [opponents of the US] lifted up" and "the hungry [us] filled with good things".

You can even discern proxies for the wise men among some of Julian Assange's bail guarantors (one is in fact a Nobel prize-winning scientist), and to top it off various US politicians and Swedish prosecutors seem to be channelling king Herod.

Australians are reacting positively to the facts and narrative.

According to our research, out of a politically representative group of 950 opinion leaders, 65 per cent approve of the WikiLeaks organisation, while only 18 per cent disapprove.

When we asked specifically about whether they approve of the release of the US cables, support dropped five percentage points to 60 per cent while disapproval increased seven points to 25 per cent.

WikiLeaks may stand in a sweet spot for its story, but our love is not unconditional.

On an issue like this you would expect differences based on political allegiance, and this is indeed the case. Greens voters (as well as our small samples of Australian Democrat and One Nation voters) are the most enthusiastic supporters of WikiLeaks, followed by Labor voters.

Even so, Liberal and Nationals voters are not so much opposed as evenly split; 48 per cent approve of the WikiLeaks operation and 46 per cent approve of the leaking of the cables.

So there is broad goodwill for WikiLeaks.

To a certain extent this goodwill arises from the fact that most respondents don't see much harm in what has been released in Cablegate. In fact, most of them have trouble remembering anything specifically that has been released, unless it concerns gossip about Kevin Rudd or Mark Arbib.

While the media has portrayed the bulk of the diplomatic cables as embarrassing for the US, that's not the way many of our respondents see it. In part their relaxed attitude towards the documents is because they see them as being little more than gossip, or confirming what they already knew.

There is also appreciation for some of the piquancy of the diplomatic language ("Americans in the foreign service are wittier than I had anticipated"), and a feeling that the US may be more on top of its game than respondents had thought. So for some the documents in fact improve their perception of the US.

To many, the importance of the cables is not so much what they contain but the theatre in the way that governments across the world have reacted to them. "Their actual content is so-so ... That's what's good about WikiLeaks cables ... not the cable ... rather those who react ... and it's created public debate and is making the Christmas season so fun."

One of those reacting is Julia Gillard, and it is ironic that on an issue that ought to run to some extent in Labor's direction, she has miscalled it so badly. Ninety-four per cent of Greens and 73 per cent of Labor voters disapprove of her critical pronouncements on Assange and the legality of his behaviour. She does best with Liberal and Nationals voters, where a smaller 65 per cent disapprove.

So how strong is WikiLeaks' position in public esteem? Well it has some weaknesses. While respondents may not approve of Gillard on Assange, that doesn't mean they are particularly easy with him themselves.

We analysed qualitative responses on what respondents thought of Assange using Leximancer software. While information is the central theme, indicating that what he does is more important than who he is, there are two strongly opposed views of his character. Those who approve of WikiLeaks see him as courageous and brave; those who disapprove call him narcissistic, vain and egotistical, and tend to see WikiLeaks as an exercise in self-promotion.

Assange is potentially a bit of a bad Santa.

At the moment, the dominant view of him is that he is courageous , but if WikiLeaks were to release damaging information, or Assange's personality became dominant, things could change.

While Assange, in common with many of our respondents, appears to think governments should have no secrets, that was not a commonly held view among our respondents when it comes to matters affecting their security.

Although only 51 per cent agreed "governments ought to have secrets from their citizens", for matters of security 69 per cent approved of governments keeping documents secret; for military documents it was 62 per cent.

If identifiable private individuals were hurt by a WikiLeaks operation, it could have an effect on their public standing, particularly as, where documents are stolen, or leaked, respondents saw the publisher having the largest responsibility rather than those responsible for the lax security, or the leaker.

Although whether WikiLeaks is the publisher is in some ways moot, with most respondents (90 per cent) accessing the WikiLeaks material from the mainstream media; for some respondents this raises issues of how novel and independent WikiLeaks is.

They see Assange as, in a sense, a contracted employee, providing the newspapers with information using new media, but not in any substantial sense representing new media or in reality being independent himself.

It is clear that cablegate raises issues of government and individual privacy and confidentiality that may in the long run be viewed differently from what is the case at present.

There is widespread distrust and disdain for government, so the mood is against it having any secrets, yet respondents in general acknowledge that some level of secrecy is unavoidable in specific areas.

The irony for WikiLeaks is that while its operation continues as a bit of Christmas drama it will probably retain its favourable status, but should it cause any serious damage, then things will change.