6 ms·

> I think you do Snowden a disservice when you lump him in with Assange. Correct. Snowden is a Whistle-blower. Assange is a journalist, though perhaps not the

> I think you do Snowden a disservice when you lump him in with Assange. Correct. Snowden is a Whistle-blower. Assange is a journalist, though perhaps not the kind Snowden would have trusted his stolen data with.

pstuart 7y ago
Assange is an attention whore. I had such high hopes for wikileaks but it was, in the end, a vehicle for him to promote himself.
- boomskats 7y ago
  It was & is far, far more than that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Miner49er 7y ago
  You think Assange put himself at as much risk as he did to promote himself? He spent 7 years locked in an embassy (to great detriment to his health and was arguably worse then jail), is now in jail, and is facing at least life in prison, if not the death penalty. You really think he did all that just to promote himself and for some attention?
  - pstuart 7y ago
    It's not like we think everything through when we set out on a journey. He probably went in with good intentions but was blinded by the lights of fame.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > He spent 7 years locked in an embassy ... To avoid criminal charges for things unrelated to his political/journalistic exploits. Plenty of people run when faced with possible jail time, e.g., Roman Polanski.
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      This is a lie. He stated from the start he was hiding to avoid extradition to the United States for his journalism.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        And it looks like now that he's been removed from the embassy, he's being extradited to the US based on his journalism, just like he feared.
        throw0101a 7y ago
        > based on his journalism He is being extradited to the US on the charge that he helped Manning break into classified computers. These alleged actions are no longer journalism. Greenwald and Poitras never faced charges for publishing the documents Snowden leaked / provided. The NY Times did not face charges for leaking the Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg gave them. Assange would not have been charged with leaking documents that others provided—but he is alleged to have taken a step too far.
      - throw0101a 7y ago
        I do not understand this point: He was in the UK, who has an extradition treaty with the US. He was facing charges in Sweden, who also have an extradition treaty with the US. Why was he afraid of being extradited from Sweden but not the UK? If the US wanted him they could have gone after him while he was still live in the UK. Why fear going to Sweden? I never understood this argument: am I missing some nuance in international law?
    - loup-vaillant 7y ago
      As far as I know the case was closed then reopened after some embarrassing US document leaked, and without any new relevant element. As far as I know, the Sweden authorities had the possibility to interrogate Assange without extraditing him, yet for some reason did not use that possibility. Finding reliable sources with all relevant details is a hassle, so take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I believe at this point that this unrelated affair is more an attempt at character assassination than a real thing. (I do recall that he reportedly didn't used protection, which would qualify him as a major jerk. Legislations seem to disagree on whether this was a crime or not, though.)
bdhess 7y ago
I think calling Assange a journalist is very debatable. He certainly doesn’t comply with the ethical norms of the profession.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  People say this on this basis of hearsay, like he “selectively released documents” for which there is no evidence.
  - slg 7y ago
    One huge ethical red flag for Assange and Wikileaks is their view on redacting documents. They published numerous details that a traditional journalistic outlet would never make public include the names of informants. This almost certainly resulted in people being killed.
    - Synaesthesia 7y ago
      To my knowledge nobody has ever died as a result of what they have reported. They do careful redaction.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      > They published numerous details that a traditional journalistic outlet would never make public include the names of informants. Valerie Plame would like to have a word with you. If we keep going down this road we'd end up with No True Scotsman. The reality is "traditional" journalists have done this - Assange is not an outlier in this regard. If we tolerate the "worst" of the traditional (which US society clearly does), then we can't use this as an argument against Assange.
      - slg 7y ago
        >Valerie Plame would like to have a word with you. I probably shouldn't have used the word "never", but the fact that the Valieria Plame reveal was such a big deal is basically the exception that proves the rule that it is highly unusual for a journalist to reveal this information. Assange is certainly an outlier in the number of people who he exposed and the reason for exposing them. He reportedly said on the issue that "they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." [1] Maybe you think that is a No True Scotsman argument, but I really can't imagine a well respected journalist showing such a complete lack of concern for human life. A traditional journalist would generally required some reason of tremendous value to justify putting those people's lives at risk. Assange's reasoning instead appears to be "They deserve it." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Informants_named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Info...

pstuart 7y ago

Assange is an attention whore. I had such high hopes for wikileaks but it was, in the end, a vehicle for him to promote himself.

boomskats 7y ago
It was & is far, far more than that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Miner49er 7y ago
You think Assange put himself at as much risk as he did to promote himself? He spent 7 years locked in an embassy (to great detriment to his health and was arguably worse then jail), is now in jail, and is facing at least life in prison, if not the death penalty. You really think he did all that just to promote himself and for some attention?
- pstuart 7y ago
  It's not like we think everything through when we set out on a journey. He probably went in with good intentions but was blinded by the lights of fame.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > He spent 7 years locked in an embassy ... To avoid criminal charges for things unrelated to his political/journalistic exploits. Plenty of people run when faced with possible jail time, e.g., Roman Polanski.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    This is a lie. He stated from the start he was hiding to avoid extradition to the United States for his journalism.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      And it looks like now that he's been removed from the embassy, he's being extradited to the US based on his journalism, just like he feared.
      - throw0101a 7y ago
        > based on his journalism He is being extradited to the US on the charge that he helped Manning break into classified computers. These alleged actions are no longer journalism. Greenwald and Poitras never faced charges for publishing the documents Snowden leaked / provided. The NY Times did not face charges for leaking the Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg gave them. Assange would not have been charged with leaking documents that others provided—but he is alleged to have taken a step too far.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      I do not understand this point: He was in the UK, who has an extradition treaty with the US. He was facing charges in Sweden, who also have an extradition treaty with the US. Why was he afraid of being extradited from Sweden but not the UK? If the US wanted him they could have gone after him while he was still live in the UK. Why fear going to Sweden? I never understood this argument: am I missing some nuance in international law?
  - loup-vaillant 7y ago
    As far as I know the case was closed then reopened after some embarrassing US document leaked, and without any new relevant element. As far as I know, the Sweden authorities had the possibility to interrogate Assange without extraditing him, yet for some reason did not use that possibility. Finding reliable sources with all relevant details is a hassle, so take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I believe at this point that this unrelated affair is more an attempt at character assassination than a real thing. (I do recall that he reportedly didn't used protection, which would qualify him as a major jerk. Legislations seem to disagree on whether this was a crime or not, though.)

bdhess 7y ago

I think calling Assange a journalist is very debatable. He certainly doesn’t comply with the ethical norms of the profession.

Synaesthesia 7y ago
People say this on this basis of hearsay, like he “selectively released documents” for which there is no evidence.
- slg 7y ago
  One huge ethical red flag for Assange and Wikileaks is their view on redacting documents. They published numerous details that a traditional journalistic outlet would never make public include the names of informants. This almost certainly resulted in people being killed.
  - Synaesthesia 7y ago
    To my knowledge nobody has ever died as a result of what they have reported. They do careful redaction.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    > They published numerous details that a traditional journalistic outlet would never make public include the names of informants. Valerie Plame would like to have a word with you. If we keep going down this road we'd end up with No True Scotsman. The reality is "traditional" journalists have done this - Assange is not an outlier in this regard. If we tolerate the "worst" of the traditional (which US society clearly does), then we can't use this as an argument against Assange.
    - slg 7y ago
      >Valerie Plame would like to have a word with you. I probably shouldn't have used the word "never", but the fact that the Valieria Plame reveal was such a big deal is basically the exception that proves the rule that it is highly unusual for a journalist to reveal this information. Assange is certainly an outlier in the number of people who he exposed and the reason for exposing them. He reportedly said on the issue that "they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." [1] Maybe you think that is a No True Scotsman argument, but I really can't imagine a well respected journalist showing such a complete lack of concern for human life. A traditional journalist would generally required some reason of tremendous value to justify putting those people's lives at risk. Assange's reasoning instead appears to be "They deserve it." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Informants_named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Info...