4 ms·

> Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist. I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a med

> Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist. I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.

zepto 6y ago
I take your point - Assange does not have a media empire and is not like Murdoch in that way. However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists. None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does. He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher. He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor. If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists. That’s just not accurate. Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers. Assange is not a journalist. He is a publisher.
- mariusor 6y ago
  I've been following the reporting from the witness testimonies and some of them detailed that a lot of work has went into editing (and supressing some of) the documents that he supposedly released without censoring names of assets. I posted these links previously in the thread but Daniel Ellsberg talks a bit about how this was handled: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-extradition-trial-assange/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-... https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-11/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
  - zepto 6y ago
    Those actually seem to confirm my view. They don’t talk about Assange writing a story, or editing reports. They talk about Wikileaks, his publishing organization, working as a peer in cooperation with the NYT, the Guardian, and other publishers. They describe his priorities and concerns and the protocols he wanted to use. All of these are consistent with Assange as the creator of Wikileaks standing as a publisher. Also, that testimony looks very good for Assange.
    - mariusor 6y ago
      I was trying to illustrate that he was exhibiting editorial discretion over a very bulk and voluminous material. That makes him an editor, on behalf of Wikileaks as the publisher. You might argue that an editor that didn't come from a journalistic background is not a journalist, but I think others feel differently. I'm pretty sure I read in the articles covering the hearings that some journalist organizations were claiming he is one. Found a mention in day 8 of the hearings reporting (search for mentions of Chelsea Manning): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
      - zepto 6y ago
        Given that he is the creator and head of Wikileaks, he can be seen as a publisher who directs editorial policy (as many publishers do). I’m not arguing that he’s not involved in editorial decisions. I am arguing that it’s misleading to call him a journalist. That’s not why he matters. People are calling him a journalist because they hope it will save his life. I hope it does too. I just think that if we care about his overall goal, we should see him as a publisher - because that’s the work he has done that matters.

zepto 6y ago

I take your point - Assange does not have a media empire and is not like Murdoch in that way. However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists. None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does. He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher. He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor. If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists. That’s just not accurate. Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers. Assange is not a journalist. He is a publisher.

mariusor 6y ago
I've been following the reporting from the witness testimonies and some of them detailed that a lot of work has went into editing (and supressing some of) the documents that he supposedly released without censoring names of assets. I posted these links previously in the thread but Daniel Ellsberg talks a bit about how this was handled: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-extradition-trial-assange/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-... https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-11/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
- zepto 6y ago
  Those actually seem to confirm my view. They don’t talk about Assange writing a story, or editing reports. They talk about Wikileaks, his publishing organization, working as a peer in cooperation with the NYT, the Guardian, and other publishers. They describe his priorities and concerns and the protocols he wanted to use. All of these are consistent with Assange as the creator of Wikileaks standing as a publisher. Also, that testimony looks very good for Assange.
  - mariusor 6y ago
    I was trying to illustrate that he was exhibiting editorial discretion over a very bulk and voluminous material. That makes him an editor, on behalf of Wikileaks as the publisher. You might argue that an editor that didn't come from a journalistic background is not a journalist, but I think others feel differently. I'm pretty sure I read in the articles covering the hearings that some journalist organizations were claiming he is one. Found a mention in day 8 of the hearings reporting (search for mentions of Chelsea Manning): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
    - zepto 6y ago
      Given that he is the creator and head of Wikileaks, he can be seen as a publisher who directs editorial policy (as many publishers do). I’m not arguing that he’s not involved in editorial decisions. I am arguing that it’s misleading to call him a journalist. That’s not why he matters. People are calling him a journalist because they hope it will save his life. I hope it does too. I just think that if we care about his overall goal, we should see him as a publisher - because that’s the work he has done that matters.