With the obligation to act as watchdog over governmental affairs, media outlets frequently balance the public's right to know versus other competing interests. These interests might include an individual's privacy rights, libel concerns, a law enforcement agency's investigation or whether the information could incite violence or perhaps jeopardize the safety of our troops engaged in warfare.

Such are the ethical obligations various media grapple with on a regular basis.

The emergence of so-called citizen journalists and special-interest organizations via the Internet have thrown a monkey wrench into traditional reporting standards. Unfortunately, some traditional outlets are following the lead of these devil-may-care operations.

This week, a heretofore little-known website, www.wikileaks.com, obtained 91,000 classified records detailing the war on the ground in Afghanistan. The site, which is run by an Australian former computer hacker and avowed anti-war protester named Julian Assange, posted 76,000 of the raw intelligence reports that clearly were not created for public consumption. Yet The New York Times, The Guardian in London and Der Spiegel in Germany all followed suit in posting the unauthorized documents.

For that, they should be ashamed. The security risk posed to U.S. military, its mission in Afghanistan or any operatives in the region could be enormous. Just as likely, the illegal leak will change the manner in which intelligence-gathering organizations share information -- something that opened up after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

So why would wikileaks publish such damaging information? Because it can. As Assange boasted: "... I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work."

The Army, Department of Defense and the U.S. Justice Department all are working to determine where the information came from. Clearly, an illegal act has taken place.

But what did this website and the generally credible newspapers mentioned above stand to gain? Viewers and readers. That's it. There is no better understanding of the ill-fated war against terrorism. The public debate was not enhanced regarding the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. American citizens were not informed of anything useful. The documents won't even further the cause of those against the war.

Simply put, this was irresponsible behavior on behalf of wikileaks, the Times, the Guardian and der Spiegel. The potentially disruptive nature to U.S. efforts in the region was not balanced by offering anything useful for the public to know.

Editorial by Patrick Lowry

plowry@dailynews.net