5 ms·

Are you really calling what Assange did "investigative journalism"?

JAlexoid 6y ago
It doesn't matter what you think is investigative journalism. What Assange did is investigative journalism... as proven by Bellingcat, that literally bought private phone, flight, bank and train ticket data on private individuals to show how FSB tried to kill Navalny.
- baud147258 6y ago
  well bellingcat went (and still goes) looking for information, sources and then publishes article on those stories, which is not exactly what Assange did, which was mostly making confidential documents (sent by a variety of sources) available to the wider public
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    They also publish their source materials and how they obtained them. Writing summary articles is not the definition of journalism.
    - baud147258 6y ago
      that still doesn't make what Assange did "investigative journalism", unlike what Bellingcat does
      - JAlexoid 6y ago
        It does, so stop trying to be the "ultimate authority on what is investigative journalism"
        baud147258 6y ago
        and you are the one, to claim it was? Because nothing you wrote changed my mind on whether or not Assange did investigative journalism. Some journalists did use the documents that Assange released into the wild as a basis for their investigations, but that's not what Assange did
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Assange first provided the cables to newspapers like The Guardian, Der Spiegel and El Pais, so that they could write articles about them. After they had had time to work through the material and write up a series of articles, WikiLeaks published redacted versions of the cables.
Dirlewanger 6y ago
Funny how everyone's opinion about Assange changed after 2016.
- tootie 6y ago
  I've been a pretty consistent believer that Assange is a narcissist and an ass on personal level. His public statements about his work always seemed childish and petulant. It probably does bias me somewhat against his work. I'm generally supportive of bringing information to light, but Assange himself doesn't seem to do much besides host the data and he doesn't even do that well since he leaked the unredacted cablegate. And given that MSM sources have exposed far more and it don't more responsibly and faced courts over their actions, it makes me think that he's not much of a hero. I'm not sold that his actions wrt to cablegate were espionage, but I'd very much like to hear about what he discussed with Roger Stone and Guccifer 2.0.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- baud147258 6y ago
  I don't think my opinion much changed since I heard about wikileak
- colordrops 6y ago
  One of the main activities of the CIA is to shape public opinion. They already proved that they hated him enough to hire contractors to destroy him, and the leaked HBGary/Palantir proposal from 2011 even talks about smearing him on social media: https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf
- anothernewdude 6y ago
  Funny how hard this narrative of people liking him before 2016 is being pushed.
alisonkisk 6y ago
Irrelevant pendantry is boring.
- baud147258 6y ago
  I wasn't trying to be pedant, I just don't think what Assange did is investigative journalism, which was an important part of the comment I was replying to.
  - Synaesthesia 6y ago
    Of course it is and was, it's very valuable investigative journalism, which was picked up by major newspapers (Guardian, NY Times) who won awards for their work.
    - 542354234235 6y ago
      It isn’t cut and dry. What the newspapers did was very clearly investigative journalism. But it is argued that investigative journalism requires some sort of care and responsibility when dealing with the safety of others. Assange’s classified data dumps did not redact names and details that could/did put people in danger. Is simply broadcasting information investigative journalism? Maybe. What if amongst the documents there were lists of names/locations of persecuted minority populations within an authoritarian country? Is it journalism to simply publish the list, giving the country greater ability to target those people? Or does it require using that information expose the targeting and the implications of why that list exists and what the implications are while protecting the identities of the vulnerable people? I don’t think anyone is arguing that a lot of the information was valuable and needed to be brought to light. The “devil is in the details” of how it was done and what responsibility was taken on his part.
__s 6y ago
Doesn't matter whether we agree on whether he's an investigative journalist, this'll still be cited as precedent in the future against investigative journalists

It doesn't matter what you think is investigative journalism. What Assange did is investigative journalism... as proven by Bellingcat, that literally bought private phone, flight, bank and train ticket data on private individuals to show how FSB tried to kill Navalny.

baud147258 6y ago
well bellingcat went (and still goes) looking for information, sources and then publishes article on those stories, which is not exactly what Assange did, which was mostly making confidential documents (sent by a variety of sources) available to the wider public
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  They also publish their source materials and how they obtained them. Writing summary articles is not the definition of journalism.
  - baud147258 6y ago
    that still doesn't make what Assange did "investigative journalism", unlike what Bellingcat does
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      It does, so stop trying to be the "ultimate authority on what is investigative journalism"
      - baud147258 6y ago
        and you are the one, to claim it was? Because nothing you wrote changed my mind on whether or not Assange did investigative journalism. Some journalists did use the documents that Assange released into the wild as a basis for their investigations, but that's not what Assange did
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Assange first provided the cables to newspapers like The Guardian, Der Spiegel and El Pais, so that they could write articles about them. After they had had time to work through the material and write up a series of articles, WikiLeaks published redacted versions of the cables.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

Funny how everyone's opinion about Assange changed after 2016.

tootie 6y ago
I've been a pretty consistent believer that Assange is a narcissist and an ass on personal level. His public statements about his work always seemed childish and petulant. It probably does bias me somewhat against his work. I'm generally supportive of bringing information to light, but Assange himself doesn't seem to do much besides host the data and he doesn't even do that well since he leaked the unredacted cablegate. And given that MSM sources have exposed far more and it don't more responsibly and faced courts over their actions, it makes me think that he's not much of a hero. I'm not sold that his actions wrt to cablegate were espionage, but I'd very much like to hear about what he discussed with Roger Stone and Guccifer 2.0.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baud147258 6y ago
I don't think my opinion much changed since I heard about wikileak
colordrops 6y ago
One of the main activities of the CIA is to shape public opinion. They already proved that they hated him enough to hire contractors to destroy him, and the leaked HBGary/Palantir proposal from 2011 even talks about smearing him on social media: https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf
anothernewdude 6y ago
Funny how hard this narrative of people liking him before 2016 is being pushed.

alisonkisk 6y ago

Irrelevant pendantry is boring.

baud147258 6y ago
I wasn't trying to be pedant, I just don't think what Assange did is investigative journalism, which was an important part of the comment I was replying to.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Of course it is and was, it's very valuable investigative journalism, which was picked up by major newspapers (Guardian, NY Times) who won awards for their work.
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    It isn’t cut and dry. What the newspapers did was very clearly investigative journalism. But it is argued that investigative journalism requires some sort of care and responsibility when dealing with the safety of others. Assange’s classified data dumps did not redact names and details that could/did put people in danger. Is simply broadcasting information investigative journalism? Maybe. What if amongst the documents there were lists of names/locations of persecuted minority populations within an authoritarian country? Is it journalism to simply publish the list, giving the country greater ability to target those people? Or does it require using that information expose the targeting and the implications of why that list exists and what the implications are while protecting the identities of the vulnerable people? I don’t think anyone is arguing that a lot of the information was valuable and needed to be brought to light. The “devil is in the details” of how it was done and what responsibility was taken on his part.

__s 6y ago

Doesn't matter whether we agree on whether he's an investigative journalist, this'll still be cited as precedent in the future against investigative journalists