3 ms·

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.