3 ms·

Assange is a polarizing topic. I see two major issues: 1. What is a journalist? If you receive classified materials, filter out anything that might put lives i

by jmyeet 3y ago

Assange is a polarizing topic. I see two major issues: 1. What is a journalist? If you receive classified materials, filter out anything that might put lives in danger and release it (eg the Pentagon Papers) then that's journalism. If you provide material aid and instruction to someone to murder someone for information then that's no longer journalism, even though you may publish that information as a journalist. The point is that journalism isn't an absolute defense. So where does Assange lie on this scale? This debatable because he provided material aid to Manning (allegedly). 2. Bias. This is more of a PR issue than a journalism issue because journalists and publications have bias but it's a question of degree and transparency. At some point you're lon longer a journalist,, you're an operative for a particular cause or political party. In 2016, for example, Assange timed the email release quite deliberately to hurt the HIlary campaign and also (allegedly) didn't publish information embarrassing to the Republican Party. Importantly, this selective release of information and the deliberate timing of those releases for political or personal ends undermines Wikileaks' stated mission. It makes it easier to, for example, paint him as a Republican hack or a tool of Russian intelligence, whether that's true or not. Also, at a certain point, what did you think was going to happen? Of course, the long arm of US law enforcement was going to smack you down.

skissane 3y ago
> At some point you're lon longer a journalist,, you're an operative for a particular cause or political party. In 2016, for example, Assange timed the email release quite deliberately to hurt the HIlary campaign and also (allegedly) didn't publish information embarrassing to the Republican Party. Don't you think a lot of professional media outlets do that too? Be eager to publish negative stories about people they dislike, sit on or suppress negative stories about people they do like? Imagine it is late October next year, and the New York Times or Washington Post uncover a new scandal about one of the presidential candidates - if it is about the Republican (probably Trump), they'll be eager to publish it; if it is about the Democrat (probably Biden), they'll likely get stuck into debating whether they should, double-checking and triple-checking it, and by the time that's all done the election is over. Whereas, I'd expect the Wall Street Journal or Fox News to do the exact same thing, just the other way around.
- jmyeet 3y ago
  Of course they do. Bias is expected. Media should generally disclose any biases and conflicts of interest. Generally to be taken seriously as a media outlet, they should try to avoid bias as much as possible. The Economist, for example, is a pro-Europe, pro-NATO, neoliberal publication. Bias can take many forms. The choice of what you cover, the choice of what you don't cover, the language you use (eg passive vs active voice), not questioning certain sources (eg being a steganopgrapher for a particular spokesperson), the timing of a story and so on. Wikileaks described itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking". So choosing what to publish and when to publish it undermines that claim. What then distinguishes Julian Assange from Alex Jones?
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Of course they do. Bias is expected. So Assange as a journalist isn't doing anything fundamentally different from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc > Wikileaks described itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking". So choosing what to publish and when to publish it undermines that claim. I think Wikileaks was always going to exercise some discretion about what leaks it published. For example, suppose someone sent it a hospital's medical records database. I expect they would have looked at that and said "we aren't publishing this" - because it would have been a massive invasion of privacy of random private individuals with no public interest to justify it. Just like "real journalists" - there is some responsibility to determine what should be published and what should not be. And, just like "real journalists", sometimes that responsibility gets clouded by political bias. > What then distinguishes Julian Assange from Alex Jones? Assange published real secret government documents. Alex Jones just completely made stuff up, e.g. "School shootings are faked by the government". That's a massive difference.
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  Here's the October 29, 2016 front page of the NYT: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/p4som5mZ1n0DTPOmd6YXUuVh7wM=/0x0:700x684/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:700x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19307713/nyt_her_emails.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/p4som5mZ1n0DTPOmd6YXUuVh7wM=... I think their bias is not entirely straightforward.

by jmyeet 3y ago

skissane 3y ago

> At some point you're lon longer a journalist,, you're an operative for a particular cause or political party. In 2016, for example, Assange timed the email release quite deliberately to hurt the HIlary campaign and also (allegedly) didn't publish information embarrassing to the Republican Party. Don't you think a lot of professional media outlets do that too? Be eager to publish negative stories about people they dislike, sit on or suppress negative stories about people they do like? Imagine it is late October next year, and the New York Times or Washington Post uncover a new scandal about one of the presidential candidates - if it is about the Republican (probably Trump), they'll be eager to publish it; if it is about the Democrat (probably Biden), they'll likely get stuck into debating whether they should, double-checking and triple-checking it, and by the time that's all done the election is over. Whereas, I'd expect the Wall Street Journal or Fox News to do the exact same thing, just the other way around.

jmyeet 3y ago
Of course they do. Bias is expected. Media should generally disclose any biases and conflicts of interest. Generally to be taken seriously as a media outlet, they should try to avoid bias as much as possible. The Economist, for example, is a pro-Europe, pro-NATO, neoliberal publication. Bias can take many forms. The choice of what you cover, the choice of what you don't cover, the language you use (eg passive vs active voice), not questioning certain sources (eg being a steganopgrapher for a particular spokesperson), the timing of a story and so on. Wikileaks described itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking". So choosing what to publish and when to publish it undermines that claim. What then distinguishes Julian Assange from Alex Jones?
- skissane 3y ago
  > Of course they do. Bias is expected. So Assange as a journalist isn't doing anything fundamentally different from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc > Wikileaks described itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking". So choosing what to publish and when to publish it undermines that claim. I think Wikileaks was always going to exercise some discretion about what leaks it published. For example, suppose someone sent it a hospital's medical records database. I expect they would have looked at that and said "we aren't publishing this" - because it would have been a massive invasion of privacy of random private individuals with no public interest to justify it. Just like "real journalists" - there is some responsibility to determine what should be published and what should not be. And, just like "real journalists", sometimes that responsibility gets clouded by political bias. > What then distinguishes Julian Assange from Alex Jones? Assange published real secret government documents. Alex Jones just completely made stuff up, e.g. "School shootings are faked by the government". That's a massive difference.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Here's the October 29, 2016 front page of the NYT: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/p4som5mZ1n0DTPOmd6YXUuVh7wM=/0x0:700x684/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:700x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19307713/nyt_her_emails.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/p4som5mZ1n0DTPOmd6YXUuVh7wM=... I think their bias is not entirely straightforward.