3 ms·

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

by bdhess 7y ago

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...
      - BeetleB 7y ago
        > 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. It was a big deal because people wanted to score political points, not because of a breach in standards. The more relevant point is the standing the journalist still had in society - he did not lose his job for it, let alone be prosecuted for it. The quote you provide is taken out of context - at least from the Wiki page it is not clear if he is referring to the names that were leaked, as opposed to the ones that they ultimately decided to redact. I suspect the latter because it says "initially refused". > but I really can't imagine a well respected journalist showing such a complete lack of concern for human life. When you add the "well respected journalist", we really are in No True Scotsman territory. If all you mean to say is "He is a lousy journalist," then we have no disagreements. Without that qualifier, have you thought about extreme views held by existing, famous journalists? How much of an outlier is Assange compared to other "extreme" but established journalists?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
loup-vaillant 7y ago
How good a journalist he is is debatable. His ethics as a journalist may be debatable. His status as a (possibly bad, possibly unethical) journalist is much harder to debate: he set up a way to have information, which he then made public. Sounds like journalism to me.

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

by 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...
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      > 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. It was a big deal because people wanted to score political points, not because of a breach in standards. The more relevant point is the standing the journalist still had in society - he did not lose his job for it, let alone be prosecuted for it. The quote you provide is taken out of context - at least from the Wiki page it is not clear if he is referring to the names that were leaked, as opposed to the ones that they ultimately decided to redact. I suspect the latter because it says "initially refused". > but I really can't imagine a well respected journalist showing such a complete lack of concern for human life. When you add the "well respected journalist", we really are in No True Scotsman territory. If all you mean to say is "He is a lousy journalist," then we have no disagreements. Without that qualifier, have you thought about extreme views held by existing, famous journalists? How much of an outlier is Assange compared to other "extreme" but established journalists?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

loup-vaillant 7y ago

How good a journalist he is is debatable. His ethics as a journalist may be debatable. His status as a (possibly bad, possibly unethical) journalist is much harder to debate: he set up a way to have information, which he then made public. Sounds like journalism to me.