3 ms·

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 Wikileak

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.