Wikileaks is definitely a controversial organization, questionable for the legitimacy of its mission raising numerous concerns about the digital future of information on a broader spectrum. In a Utopian world, the idea of mutual contribution to the wealth of human knowledge without any restraints or filtering, would be a noble safeguarded privilege. The scenario though differs significantly when an individual or organization uses this uncensored power to threat, control or even destroy another entity. The debates between open and closed governance, regulation and deregulation, ownership and pluralism apply on this issue making it extremely complicated to approach.
As a result of the rapid Internet expansion and its constantly growing potential, the gap between the developed and the developing world has been intensified adding one more aspect. While the citizens of western societies have the world information at their fingertips the citizens of the developed word are striving to overcome the dark ages of information deprivation due to lacking technological infrastructure.
Media ownership is heavily debated as it holds the media conglomerates accountable for disseminating censored and filtered information preventing the audience from objective information. Consistently, the literature points that media ownership types have insignificant impact on the news agenda when comparing for example family and state owned agencies. One major difference though is the quality of news production where the large corporations have the funding and thus the comparative advantage in contrast to small local stations. These are no surprise since in general media companies are profit oriented. Determined to please their consumers, tailor-made stories reach the audience instead of objectivity, leading to the formation of biased mis-perceptions such as the story of the Iraqi nuclear weapons possession among the US population.