5 ms·

I agree. Assange made a set of choices that had a political outcome, and he did it on purpose in the hopes that it would have such an outcome. One can argue all

I agree. Assange made a set of choices that had a political outcome, and he did it on purpose in the hopes that it would have such an outcome. One can argue all day about whether this interventionism was "ethical" or whether what Assange practiced was "journalism", but it doesn't really matter. The people who are deciding Assange's future -- the ones who Assange hoped to put into office -- don't give a crap about any of those questions.

mc32 6y ago
Couldn’t you apply this to all political scoops during a political campaign, when the reporter is on the opposing side —so all opposition reporters would not be journalists in this take.
- hallihax 6y ago
  Well exactly - this is the problem. When reporting documented, verifiable evidence is treated as 'political activism by journalists', everyone should be worried.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  My point, which I should have made more clear, is that none of this matters. If every civil society and journalistic organization in the world rallied to the defense of Assange and agreed that he was performing essential reporting activities, it will have absolutely zero influence on the people who are targeting him.
hallihax 6y ago
Assange is on record dismissing both candidates in the 2016 election as terrible choices, and the DNC / Clinton documents WL released also included oppo-research on Trump. Wikileaks publications preceding and during the 2016 campaigns weren't targeted at damaging Clinton, as much as the Clinton camp and its surrogates like to claim. It was about informing the public, which is exactly what journalism is supposed to do. What people subsequently do with that information is entirely up to them.
- fanatic2pope 6y ago
  > “Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).” > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
  - hallihax 6y ago
    This is called 'cultivating sources', not 'collusion'. In any case, the conversations led to nothing. WL wanted info and data - which is their trade, and to boost the reach and impact of their publications; again, completely normal. What's the problem, exactly?
    - fanatic2pope 6y ago
      If you don't see a problem with wikileaks specifically looking for a curated "leak" to help Trump's campaign and their own appearance of "impartiality", there's not much else to say here.
      - hallihax 6y ago
        I don't see any problem whatsoever with a journalistic organisation approaching potential sources, no. How else do you imagine this works?

mc32 6y ago

Couldn’t you apply this to all political scoops during a political campaign, when the reporter is on the opposing side —so all opposition reporters would not be journalists in this take.

hallihax 6y ago
Well exactly - this is the problem. When reporting documented, verifiable evidence is treated as 'political activism by journalists', everyone should be worried.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
My point, which I should have made more clear, is that none of this matters. If every civil society and journalistic organization in the world rallied to the defense of Assange and agreed that he was performing essential reporting activities, it will have absolutely zero influence on the people who are targeting him.

hallihax 6y ago

Assange is on record dismissing both candidates in the 2016 election as terrible choices, and the DNC / Clinton documents WL released also included oppo-research on Trump. Wikileaks publications preceding and during the 2016 campaigns weren't targeted at damaging Clinton, as much as the Clinton camp and its surrogates like to claim. It was about informing the public, which is exactly what journalism is supposed to do. What people subsequently do with that information is entirely up to them.

fanatic2pope 6y ago
> “Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).” > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
- hallihax 6y ago
  This is called 'cultivating sources', not 'collusion'. In any case, the conversations led to nothing. WL wanted info and data - which is their trade, and to boost the reach and impact of their publications; again, completely normal. What's the problem, exactly?
  - fanatic2pope 6y ago
    If you don't see a problem with wikileaks specifically looking for a curated "leak" to help Trump's campaign and their own appearance of "impartiality", there's not much else to say here.
    - hallihax 6y ago
      I don't see any problem whatsoever with a journalistic organisation approaching potential sources, no. How else do you imagine this works?