5 ms·

If I'm honest, I feel like Wikileaks started off as a good idea and somehow morphed into something else. Journalism is an enterprise that commands a great deal

by Nrsolis 13y ago

If I'm honest, I feel like Wikileaks started off as a good idea and somehow morphed into something else. Journalism is an enterprise that commands a great deal of power. With that power comes a great deal of responsibility. I don't think that Wikileaks used that power responsibly. I also feel like Wikileaks was more akin to a propaganda campaign by a single charismatic man with a little too much anarchist in him. So while I think it goes too far to call Assange a "conspirator", I don't think he did himself any favors in the process of disseminating his acquired information. It's important to remember that intent matters. Wikileaks was trying to subvert the ability of governments to operate in secret and thus reduce their power. He wasn't trying to inform the people about things done in their name. The NYTimes isn't trying to bring down a government. I feel like Wikileaks was. edit:typo

e40 13y ago
I was on Assange's side until I saw the Frontline piece on Wikileaks. I highly recommend it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/
glesica 13y ago
So then what is Fox? They seem to be trying pretty hard to reduce the power of certain elements within the government. Whatever your political stripe, I think we can agree that Fox, MSNBC and similar do a great deal more than simply "inform the public". So does Fox even have a right to complain by your standards? The problem with involving things like "intent" is that it makes the line between "journalism" and "not journalism" murky and impossible to define clearly. This means that true protection for journalists is impossible since they will always have an uncertain status. What was widely considered to be journalism on September 10, 2001 was considered by many to be borderline treason on September 12, 2001 (remember when GWB had a 90% approval rating?). The intent might not have changed ("inform the public") but the public perception of the intent changed radically. Further, if the effect of the dissemination is taken into account in the definition of "journalism", then it is impossible to know a priori whether disseminating a given piece of information will be considered journalism or not. How can the NYT be sure that they won't accidentally spark a revolution? Further, isn't there a fairly extensive history of newspapers directly calling for various forms of revolution? So the only way to really protect journalists is to define journalism broadly and objectively. Disseminating information, regardless of motive, must be considered journalism then. This means that Wikileaks must qualify for protection just as the NYT does. Note: I'm not saying the government can't go after people who break their various responsibilities related to keeping secrets. I'm also not saying that simply making crap up and publishing it should be protected, but the laws related to these things are well-established and relatively uncontroversial.

by Nrsolis 13y ago

e40 13y ago

I was on Assange's side until I saw the Frontline piece on Wikileaks. I highly recommend it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/

glesica 13y ago

So then what is Fox? They seem to be trying pretty hard to reduce the power of certain elements within the government. Whatever your political stripe, I think we can agree that Fox, MSNBC and similar do a great deal more than simply "inform the public". So does Fox even have a right to complain by your standards? The problem with involving things like "intent" is that it makes the line between "journalism" and "not journalism" murky and impossible to define clearly. This means that true protection for journalists is impossible since they will always have an uncertain status. What was widely considered to be journalism on September 10, 2001 was considered by many to be borderline treason on September 12, 2001 (remember when GWB had a 90% approval rating?). The intent might not have changed ("inform the public") but the public perception of the intent changed radically. Further, if the effect of the dissemination is taken into account in the definition of "journalism", then it is impossible to know a priori whether disseminating a given piece of information will be considered journalism or not. How can the NYT be sure that they won't accidentally spark a revolution? Further, isn't there a fairly extensive history of newspapers directly calling for various forms of revolution? So the only way to really protect journalists is to define journalism broadly and objectively. Disseminating information, regardless of motive, must be considered journalism then. This means that Wikileaks must qualify for protection just as the NYT does. Note: I'm not saying the government can't go after people who break their various responsibilities related to keeping secrets. I'm also not saying that simply making crap up and publishing it should be protected, but the laws related to these things are well-established and relatively uncontroversial.