4 ms·

I reject your Wikipedia links as authoritative sources on what constitutes a journalist as well as your contention that he's doing anything other than dumping d

I reject your Wikipedia links as authoritative sources on what constitutes a journalist as well as your contention that he's doing anything other than dumping documents (selectively).

mduerksen 7y ago
Okay, do you have a better definition? And, of course he does more than dumping documents. For example, he has to come by them (collecting as a journalist does), which is no small feat considering which kind of documents we are taking about. If you're genuinely curious, just take a look at his work [1] to see that it's absolutely not "just dumping documents". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
berbec 7y ago
If "dumping documents" doesn't qualify as a journalist, should the New York Times return it's Pulitzer for the Pentagon Papers? [1] 1: https://www.pulitzer.org/article/race-publish-pentagon-papers https://www.pulitzer.org/article/race-publish-pentagon-paper... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/02/archives/the-times-wins-a-pulitzer-for-the-pentagon-papers-the-times-wins.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/02/archives/the-times-wins-a...
- gmueckl 7y ago
  No, because they read these papers and wrote the story on them. Wikileaks just provided mostly unprocessed data dumps. Explaining the story is a very big part of a journalist's job.
  - behringer 7y ago
    Source?
SkyBelow 7y ago
I reject your rejection. Are you going to provide any alternatives, because if not my rejection overrides yours. I would also point out that outright rejecting something without presenting either an argument or alternative why leads up away from productive discussion.
drak0n1c 7y ago
Every outlet, from the New York Times to Fox News to Slate selectively front-pages certain leaks and stories while de-emphasizing and outright ignoring others. Does that make them not-journalists too?

I reject your Wikipedia links as authoritative sources on what constitutes a journalist as well as your contention that he's doing anything other than dumping documents (selectively).

mduerksen 7y ago

Okay, do you have a better definition? And, of course he does more than dumping documents. For example, he has to come by them (collecting as a journalist does), which is no small feat considering which kind of documents we are taking about. If you're genuinely curious, just take a look at his work [1] to see that it's absolutely not "just dumping documents". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

berbec 7y ago

If "dumping documents" doesn't qualify as a journalist, should the New York Times return it's Pulitzer for the Pentagon Papers? [1] 1: https://www.pulitzer.org/article/race-publish-pentagon-papers https://www.pulitzer.org/article/race-publish-pentagon-paper... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/02/archives/the-times-wins-a-pulitzer-for-the-pentagon-papers-the-times-wins.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/02/archives/the-times-wins-a...

gmueckl 7y ago
No, because they read these papers and wrote the story on them. Wikileaks just provided mostly unprocessed data dumps. Explaining the story is a very big part of a journalist's job.
- behringer 7y ago
  Source?

SkyBelow 7y ago

I reject your rejection. Are you going to provide any alternatives, because if not my rejection overrides yours. I would also point out that outright rejecting something without presenting either an argument or alternative why leads up away from productive discussion.

drak0n1c 7y ago

Every outlet, from the New York Times to Fox News to Slate selectively front-pages certain leaks and stories while de-emphasizing and outright ignoring others. Does that make them not-journalists too?