4 ms·

I knew him as the founder and director of Wikileaks, and that Wikileaks collaborates with a number of publications to get the content of some classified informa

by Ma8ee 5y ago

I knew him as the founder and director of Wikileaks, and that Wikileaks collaborates with a number of publications to get the content of some classified information known to the general public. I didn't know that Julian Assange wrote much himself and in similar fashion worked directly as a journalist. So I'd say that at least one person (me) knew about him without knowing him as a journalist. Your last sentence make it sound like understood the complete opposite of what I said. Anyway, I'm not interested in having a discussion about Julian Assange, where I think we probably are on the same side. I just wanted to make a the small side remark about the fault in the logic.

harry8 5y ago
The reason you heard of Wikileaks and Assange isn't for golf. It is for publishing journalism and in particular journalism containing a vast number of journalistic scoops. So many that it catapulted him to international fame. If you believed wikileaks and Assange were famous for golfing or hacking or leaking or baking pie I have sympathy because the smears on what they did and do have been as relentless as they have been obviously false, (one example that won't go away: "he's a leaker who never actually leaked anything but instead published leaks like the New York Times does which makes him a leaker"). Now you know better. He's a worlds famous journalist and publisher. Without publishing and journalism you don't know him from a bar of soap. Another, separate point worth making. You don't have to like /him/ and support /him/ to support his rights which are also every person engaging in journalisms rights and also /your/ rights. You don't have to hate a government or a nation to oppose when it overreaches. This is a pretty big overreach.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  I cannot recall a single journalistic work of Julian Assange. All I know is that he facilitated the dumping of US classified documents onto a publicly accessible webpage. Not making a moral judgment about that here, but that is _exclusively_ the way in which I know him.
  - harry8 5y ago
    Why do use so many words where one, "publishing" is more accurate? The New York Times facilitated the dumping of the then President's tax returns onto a publicly accessible webpage without being able to confirm they were not stolen by russian spies.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > The reason you heard of Wikileaks and Assange isn't for golf. Exactly like the reason you've heard of Trump isn't that he's such a great golf player. But he plays golf, and he is famous... And still not "a famous golf player" like, say, Tiger Woods. > It is for publishing journalism and in particular journalism containing a vast number of journalistic scoops. So many that it catapulted him to international fame. No, the reason I've heard of Assange is that he helped people leak the content of what became a vast number of journalistic scoops to actual journalists, who wrote it up and published it. Leaking is leaking and journalism is journalism, but leaking is not journalism.
  - harry8 5y ago
    > Leaking is leaking and journalism is journalism, but leaking is not journalism. One more time. Chelsea Manning leaked the documents. Wikileaks _published_ the leaked documents leaked by Chelsea Manning along with commentary on those documents. Wikileaks did _not_ leak - they had no access to anything to leak. Once the doucments were sent to wikileaks they were leaked. They received the leaks and published. Just like the New York Times does. Just like the New York Times did for Donald Trump's tax returns where they did not know the source of the leak. Just like the New York Times did for the Pentagon Papers (where they did know the source) and the Post did for Watergate & "Deep Throat" where they did know and assisted to conceal the source of the stories that ended Nixon's presidency. Do you really not see this? No amount of "Assange is not a journalist!" Can possibly work unless you also make the New York Times journalists not journalists. Or you have politicians approving who is and isn't journalists just like Stalin used to. It's flipping amazing that we're looking at a Stalinist "you're not a journalist, gulag for you!" Approach in the USA. Un-flipping-believable to be honest. "Ah but they helped their source not be found out..." Just like the New York Times does. The Washington Post. Or any serious news operation. Every one. The actions taken by wikileaks are the exact same actions taken by the New York Times. Journalism is journalism. Any citizen can do journalism. Any citizen has the right to do journalism. Any citizen has the protections accorded by law for doing journalism. Unless you make journalism itself illegal. What about Wikileaks secure, anonymous drop boxes for leaked documents where they don't even know who's sending them. The New York Times has that too and published the President's tax returns without knowing who provided them. Could it have been Russian Spies? Who knows! Authentic, newsworthy so publish has always been the test. And that's the story here. Making journalism illegal. You can keep trying to frame wikileaks as "not journalism" but if you do down that road you get state media because what the Times does, the Post, everything more than petty gossip magazines, ie actually breaking stories of corruption and illegal activity, as Wikileaks did, is /no/ different according to the whatever law you have. Again you don't have to like Wikileaks or Assange to object to the massive overreach here impacting /your/ rights. Neither do you have to even so much as mildly dislike the USA to object to the massive overreach and actually defend what the USA and its armed forces are meant to stand for. You can do that if you love the USA and what it represents for sure. I can't stand Michael Moore nor could I stand the late Rush Limbaugh. They both make my blood boil. But I'll absolutely support their rights because those rights belong to everyone. There's no "yeah but we'll take them away but just for this asshole." The rights exist, even for those you loathe, or they don't exist, for you or everyone you love, like and respect.

by Ma8ee 5y ago

harry8 5y ago

The reason you heard of Wikileaks and Assange isn't for golf. It is for publishing journalism and in particular journalism containing a vast number of journalistic scoops. So many that it catapulted him to international fame. If you believed wikileaks and Assange were famous for golfing or hacking or leaking or baking pie I have sympathy because the smears on what they did and do have been as relentless as they have been obviously false, (one example that won't go away: "he's a leaker who never actually leaked anything but instead published leaks like the New York Times does which makes him a leaker"). Now you know better. He's a worlds famous journalist and publisher. Without publishing and journalism you don't know him from a bar of soap. Another, separate point worth making. You don't have to like /him/ and support /him/ to support his rights which are also every person engaging in journalisms rights and also /your/ rights. You don't have to hate a government or a nation to oppose when it overreaches. This is a pretty big overreach.

nostrebored 5y ago
I cannot recall a single journalistic work of Julian Assange. All I know is that he facilitated the dumping of US classified documents onto a publicly accessible webpage. Not making a moral judgment about that here, but that is _exclusively_ the way in which I know him.
- harry8 5y ago
  Why do use so many words where one, "publishing" is more accurate? The New York Times facilitated the dumping of the then President's tax returns onto a publicly accessible webpage without being able to confirm they were not stolen by russian spies.
CRConrad 5y ago
> The reason you heard of Wikileaks and Assange isn't for golf. Exactly like the reason you've heard of Trump isn't that he's such a great golf player. But he plays golf, and he is famous... And still not "a famous golf player" like, say, Tiger Woods. > It is for publishing journalism and in particular journalism containing a vast number of journalistic scoops. So many that it catapulted him to international fame. No, the reason I've heard of Assange is that he helped people leak the content of what became a vast number of journalistic scoops to actual journalists, who wrote it up and published it. Leaking is leaking and journalism is journalism, but leaking is not journalism.
- harry8 5y ago
  > Leaking is leaking and journalism is journalism, but leaking is not journalism. One more time. Chelsea Manning leaked the documents. Wikileaks _published_ the leaked documents leaked by Chelsea Manning along with commentary on those documents. Wikileaks did _not_ leak - they had no access to anything to leak. Once the doucments were sent to wikileaks they were leaked. They received the leaks and published. Just like the New York Times does. Just like the New York Times did for Donald Trump's tax returns where they did not know the source of the leak. Just like the New York Times did for the Pentagon Papers (where they did know the source) and the Post did for Watergate & "Deep Throat" where they did know and assisted to conceal the source of the stories that ended Nixon's presidency. Do you really not see this? No amount of "Assange is not a journalist!" Can possibly work unless you also make the New York Times journalists not journalists. Or you have politicians approving who is and isn't journalists just like Stalin used to. It's flipping amazing that we're looking at a Stalinist "you're not a journalist, gulag for you!" Approach in the USA. Un-flipping-believable to be honest. "Ah but they helped their source not be found out..." Just like the New York Times does. The Washington Post. Or any serious news operation. Every one. The actions taken by wikileaks are the exact same actions taken by the New York Times. Journalism is journalism. Any citizen can do journalism. Any citizen has the right to do journalism. Any citizen has the protections accorded by law for doing journalism. Unless you make journalism itself illegal. What about Wikileaks secure, anonymous drop boxes for leaked documents where they don't even know who's sending them. The New York Times has that too and published the President's tax returns without knowing who provided them. Could it have been Russian Spies? Who knows! Authentic, newsworthy so publish has always been the test. And that's the story here. Making journalism illegal. You can keep trying to frame wikileaks as "not journalism" but if you do down that road you get state media because what the Times does, the Post, everything more than petty gossip magazines, ie actually breaking stories of corruption and illegal activity, as Wikileaks did, is /no/ different according to the whatever law you have. Again you don't have to like Wikileaks or Assange to object to the massive overreach here impacting /your/ rights. Neither do you have to even so much as mildly dislike the USA to object to the massive overreach and actually defend what the USA and its armed forces are meant to stand for. You can do that if you love the USA and what it represents for sure. I can't stand Michael Moore nor could I stand the late Rush Limbaugh. They both make my blood boil. But I'll absolutely support their rights because those rights belong to everyone. There's no "yeah but we'll take them away but just for this asshole." The rights exist, even for those you loathe, or they don't exist, for you or everyone you love, like and respect.