4 ms·

What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook d

What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook definition of journalism to me.

threeseed 7y ago
So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm" when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of journalism ethics. Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  But the sort of pond scum that work for the British tabloids also never show any restraint, and yet no-one questions that they are journalists. No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly suspect. (source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on our website or FB page, according to our market research the fact that we printed actual paper gave us way more credibility with our audience than competitors who just published on the internet)
  - threeseed 7y ago
    Tabloids toe the line more so than other publications. They would never publish classified material without clearing it first with the UK government. And at minimum carefully redacting information that would put people in harm's way.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      There seems to be a hypothesis nestled in there that the tabloids are run by responsible, clear thinking individuals who are pretending to be uncivilised boors but will drop the facade when confronted with an important issue. What odds might be put on them actual being uncivilised boors who'll publish anything that gets eyeballs? More likely they wouldn't publish raw classified information because it is dry and boring.
- peltier 7y ago
  But he did do that? Wikileaks partnered with media houses from all over the world, part of that process included the joint dissemination and "limitation of harm" by censoring names in the field.
- vintermann 7y ago
  No, that is not the issue. That's just a Gish gallop-like defense coughed up now. It's not true that you have to limit harm to the government's taste in order to be considered a journalist, and it's not true that Assange did not try to limit harm either. > Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge. Not in front of this judge. If there's one thing the case against Assange hasn't been, it's subtle!
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  He never released anything that was damaging to a specific individual and actually resulted in harm to that person. His filtering is done by the amount of material he gets and what he chooses to release.
- nradov 7y ago
  That's entirely moot from the standpoint of determining guilt or innocence in US criminal court.
guidedlight 7y ago
It sounds like the textbook definition of a publisher.

What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook definition of journalism to me.

threeseed 7y ago

So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm" when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of journalism ethics. Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
But the sort of pond scum that work for the British tabloids also never show any restraint, and yet no-one questions that they are journalists. No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly suspect. (source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on our website or FB page, according to our market research the fact that we printed actual paper gave us way more credibility with our audience than competitors who just published on the internet)
- threeseed 7y ago
  Tabloids toe the line more so than other publications. They would never publish classified material without clearing it first with the UK government. And at minimum carefully redacting information that would put people in harm's way.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    There seems to be a hypothesis nestled in there that the tabloids are run by responsible, clear thinking individuals who are pretending to be uncivilised boors but will drop the facade when confronted with an important issue. What odds might be put on them actual being uncivilised boors who'll publish anything that gets eyeballs? More likely they wouldn't publish raw classified information because it is dry and boring.
peltier 7y ago
But he did do that? Wikileaks partnered with media houses from all over the world, part of that process included the joint dissemination and "limitation of harm" by censoring names in the field.
vintermann 7y ago
No, that is not the issue. That's just a Gish gallop-like defense coughed up now. It's not true that you have to limit harm to the government's taste in order to be considered a journalist, and it's not true that Assange did not try to limit harm either. > Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge. Not in front of this judge. If there's one thing the case against Assange hasn't been, it's subtle!
whamlastxmas 7y ago
He never released anything that was damaging to a specific individual and actually resulted in harm to that person. His filtering is done by the amount of material he gets and what he chooses to release.
nradov 7y ago
That's entirely moot from the standpoint of determining guilt or innocence in US criminal court.

guidedlight 7y ago

It sounds like the textbook definition of a publisher.