5 ms·

Julian Assange is a journalist? Not sure I agree with that labeling.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sjg007 7y ago
He most definitely is, and has been awarded by his peers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awa...
grenoire 7y ago
Not calling Assange a journalist does a great deal of unwarranted justice to the plenty clickbait bloggers, who also happen to be labelled as journalists.
- camel_Snake 7y ago
  You can be a shit journalist and still be a journalist. If I push a csv to a GitHub repo does that make me a journalists? I think this is the semantics posters are trying to highlight. A publisher, maybe. But I'm squarely in the 'not a journalist' camp.
mduerksen 7y ago
A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information to the public. [1] Check. You can argue about whether his style is commendable or not (for codes of conduct see [2]), but that does not change the fact that he is a journalist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...
- krapp 7y ago
  Assange doesn't write news, and classified documents are not, themselves, the product of journalism merely for being leaked. Writing a story about the Pentagon papers is journalism, printing them verbatim without context or comment is not journalism. If running a website which publishes third party content makes one a journalist then I guess Reddit makes spez a journalist too.
  - mduerksen 7y ago
    So an editor-in-chief is not a journalist to you?
    - velp 7y ago
      Correct. In the same way that a coach is not a player
    - krapp 7y ago
      > So an editor-in-chief is not a journalist to you? I don't know, ask Wikipedia, because my comment was using the definition you provided via that site. Either way, the answer isn't relevant to Assange or Wikileaks. He's not an editor in chief, because he doesn't run an organization which has editorial policies or which writes stories which have to conform to those policies. We disagree that the definition you provided applies to Assange - as I see it, it clearly doesn't. There's a reason Snowden didn't go to Wikileaks - he wanted journalists to handle the release of his information responsibly, and to provide the necessary context and framing narrative to the public. Wikileaks would simply have dumped all of them onto the web, because that's what they do.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Don't trust his motives or bias, but if folk at the Daily Mail and Fox News supposedly qualify as journalists, then Assange counts, and then isn't even one of the most biased. Personally I'd place him more in an editorial role than a journalist, but I suspect he may disagree.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  I won’t make any specific judgments to any outlets but at a certain point you’re really just a propagandist rather than a journalist if your primary goal is to sway public opinion instead of informing people on the truth. So I think relativism doesn’t help here.
  - grenoire 7y ago
    It's not Assange's fault if the truth caused opinions to sway.
    - cycrutchfield 7y ago
      >It's not Assange's fault if the selectively-revealed truth caused opinions to sway due to his editorial influence.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Thats fair, but he's a rank amateur at that compared to many major news organisations. At one point the BBC had it down to a fine art, but these days they seem to be getting a lot more clumsy.
      - serf 7y ago
        It's a relativity thing. He selectively revealed truths that were hidden from us by people who were either out-right lying, or were totally ignorant to the existence of what was revealed. So, as a citizen, do I trust an individual who selectively introduces me to information, or do I trust the large conglomerate governments which I now know to wholeheartedly lie to me on a repeated basis? In old Louisiana parlance : " if I gotta choose between bags of shit, i'll take the one that comes with the clothes pin for my nose. "
nabla9 7y ago
Journalist don't have to be good journalist to qualify as a journalist. "Not a real journalist" opinions follow the "Not a real X." where X can also be American, Patriot, good persont etc. where informally deciding something allow you to strip them their rights. I think Assange has gone shit over the time, but that does not mean that I jump into the bandwagon where I change categories arbitrarily and quit tinkling based on general principles. When Assange wants to be a journalist, he should receive critique as a journalist. He certainly has screwed up plenty. But he should also receive some protections when appropriate.
mullingitover 7y ago
I thought he was at one point, but now it's sadly obvious he's an intelligence asset. He was literally an employee of Russian state media, and I have yet to see him publish anything that would embarrass Russia.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  The last free press of Novaya Gazeta received plenty and published plenty. Their journalists have been murdered left and right, often leading back to Kreml. Why do people keep saying they haven't published anything on Russia? It's simply not truth and I see that being said over and over again.
  - camel_Snake 7y ago
    I believe you are conflating Assanges lack of publication of Russian material with Navoya Gazeta.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
      What do you mean by that? What I meant was that a lot of the sources for Novoya Gazeta regarding the murder of Anna Politkovskaya (as an example) who was one of their co-workers was Wikileaks. The very openly blamed Kreml/Putin. I don't know how else can I phrase it, I answered to the statement that "publish anything that would embarrass Russia". Also "Spy Files Russia" aka a national system of online surveillance. That counts too. You can call him an asset all you want and you might be right but the statement that is repeated by the media and a lot of the Americans that they never publish anything on Russia is simply untrue.
      - mullingitover 7y ago
        Spy Files Russia [1] > “These are tricks that the Russians were willing to give up,” says James Andrew Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who formerly worked as a Foreign Service officer and an information security rapporteur for the United Nations. “I actually thought it was a bit slow and belated. They probably had to get FSB clearance to release anything and that may have taken a while. Think of it as vaudeville for leakers.” [1] https://www.wired.com/story/wikileaks-spy-files-russia/ https://www.wired.com/story/wikileaks-spy-files-russia/

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

He most definitely is, and has been awarded by his peers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awa...

grenoire 7y ago

Not calling Assange a journalist does a great deal of unwarranted justice to the plenty clickbait bloggers, who also happen to be labelled as journalists.

camel_Snake 7y ago
You can be a shit journalist and still be a journalist. If I push a csv to a GitHub repo does that make me a journalists? I think this is the semantics posters are trying to highlight. A publisher, maybe. But I'm squarely in the 'not a journalist' camp.

mduerksen 7y ago

A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information to the public. [1] Check. You can argue about whether his style is commendable or not (for codes of conduct see [2]), but that does not change the fact that he is a journalist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...

krapp 7y ago
Assange doesn't write news, and classified documents are not, themselves, the product of journalism merely for being leaked. Writing a story about the Pentagon papers is journalism, printing them verbatim without context or comment is not journalism. If running a website which publishes third party content makes one a journalist then I guess Reddit makes spez a journalist too.
- mduerksen 7y ago
  So an editor-in-chief is not a journalist to you?
  - velp 7y ago
    Correct. In the same way that a coach is not a player
  - krapp 7y ago
    > So an editor-in-chief is not a journalist to you? I don't know, ask Wikipedia, because my comment was using the definition you provided via that site. Either way, the answer isn't relevant to Assange or Wikileaks. He's not an editor in chief, because he doesn't run an organization which has editorial policies or which writes stories which have to conform to those policies. We disagree that the definition you provided applies to Assange - as I see it, it clearly doesn't. There's a reason Snowden didn't go to Wikileaks - he wanted journalists to handle the release of his information responsibly, and to provide the necessary context and framing narrative to the public. Wikileaks would simply have dumped all of them onto the web, because that's what they do.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Don't trust his motives or bias, but if folk at the Daily Mail and Fox News supposedly qualify as journalists, then Assange counts, and then isn't even one of the most biased. Personally I'd place him more in an editorial role than a journalist, but I suspect he may disagree.

b_tterc_p 7y ago
I won’t make any specific judgments to any outlets but at a certain point you’re really just a propagandist rather than a journalist if your primary goal is to sway public opinion instead of informing people on the truth. So I think relativism doesn’t help here.
- grenoire 7y ago
  It's not Assange's fault if the truth caused opinions to sway.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    >It's not Assange's fault if the selectively-revealed truth caused opinions to sway due to his editorial influence.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Thats fair, but he's a rank amateur at that compared to many major news organisations. At one point the BBC had it down to a fine art, but these days they seem to be getting a lot more clumsy.
    - serf 7y ago
      It's a relativity thing. He selectively revealed truths that were hidden from us by people who were either out-right lying, or were totally ignorant to the existence of what was revealed. So, as a citizen, do I trust an individual who selectively introduces me to information, or do I trust the large conglomerate governments which I now know to wholeheartedly lie to me on a repeated basis? In old Louisiana parlance : " if I gotta choose between bags of shit, i'll take the one that comes with the clothes pin for my nose. "

nabla9 7y ago

Journalist don't have to be good journalist to qualify as a journalist. "Not a real journalist" opinions follow the "Not a real X." where X can also be American, Patriot, good persont etc. where informally deciding something allow you to strip them their rights. I think Assange has gone shit over the time, but that does not mean that I jump into the bandwagon where I change categories arbitrarily and quit tinkling based on general principles. When Assange wants to be a journalist, he should receive critique as a journalist. He certainly has screwed up plenty. But he should also receive some protections when appropriate.

mullingitover 7y ago

I thought he was at one point, but now it's sadly obvious he's an intelligence asset. He was literally an employee of Russian state media, and I have yet to see him publish anything that would embarrass Russia.

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
The last free press of Novaya Gazeta received plenty and published plenty. Their journalists have been murdered left and right, often leading back to Kreml. Why do people keep saying they haven't published anything on Russia? It's simply not truth and I see that being said over and over again.
- camel_Snake 7y ago
  I believe you are conflating Assanges lack of publication of Russian material with Navoya Gazeta.
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    What do you mean by that? What I meant was that a lot of the sources for Novoya Gazeta regarding the murder of Anna Politkovskaya (as an example) who was one of their co-workers was Wikileaks. The very openly blamed Kreml/Putin. I don't know how else can I phrase it, I answered to the statement that "publish anything that would embarrass Russia". Also "Spy Files Russia" aka a national system of online surveillance. That counts too. You can call him an asset all you want and you might be right but the statement that is repeated by the media and a lot of the Americans that they never publish anything on Russia is simply untrue.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      Spy Files Russia [1] > “These are tricks that the Russians were willing to give up,” says James Andrew Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who formerly worked as a Foreign Service officer and an information security rapporteur for the United Nations. “I actually thought it was a bit slow and belated. They probably had to get FSB clearance to release anything and that may have taken a while. Think of it as vaudeville for leakers.” [1] https://www.wired.com/story/wikileaks-spy-files-russia/ https://www.wired.com/story/wikileaks-spy-files-russia/