Skip to main content

The redefinition of "journalist" should foretell the end of most cable news organizations. Glad that is over.


quote:
State Dept. Assistant Secretary Philip Rowley said that the United States does not consider WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be a "journalist" or "whistleblower." He insisted that, under US law, he's to be considered a "political actor."

His criteria for reclassifying someone from protected "journalist" to a legally vulnerable "political actor": "Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist," Crowley said.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

What does it matter if we call him a journalist or a political actor? As cable news makes clear, the line between the two is already blurry.

Also, there's no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks have ever stolen anything. The leaks in the State Department and in our military intelligence (Bradley Manning) are troubling, but there's actually no law that prevents people from publishing classified material after it's been leaked, and even if there was, how would we enforce it on foreigners?
quote:
Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:
What does it matter if we call him a journalist or a political actor? As cable news makes clear, the line between the two is already blurry.

Also, there's no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks have ever stolen anything. The leaks in the State Department and in our military intelligence (Bradley Manning) are troubling, but there's actually no law that prevents people from publishing classified material after it's been leaked, and even if there was, how would we enforce it on foreigners?


Assange received stolen government secrets. David Greenglass stole state secrets and got 15 years. He gave them to the Rosenburgs. They got the gas chamber.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:
What does it matter if we call him a journalist or a political actor? As cable news makes clear, the line between the two is already blurry.

Also, there's no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks have ever stolen anything. The leaks in the State Department and in our military intelligence (Bradley Manning) are troubling, but there's actually no law that prevents people from publishing classified material after it's been leaked, and even if there was, how would we enforce it on foreigners?


Assange received stolen government secrets. David Greenglass stole state secrets and got 15 years. He gave them to the Rosenburgs. They got the gas chamber.


Assange will suffer the same fate as Daniel Ellsberg.
A journalist tells the story without becoming part of the story.

A journalist also has respect for those involved in the story. Example, the names of minors and sexual assault victims are not published in stories. The names of people who have been killed in accidents are withheld until the families can be notified properly first.

On the news this morning is video of a man holding a school board hostage. They aren't airing the part of the video where the man is shot and then takes his own life.

Assange is not a journalist. Publishing sensitive classified information with the intent of embarrassing various governments is not only reckless and dangerous, it's criminal. It's not journalism.
Some stations are airing the school board shooter getting shot multiple times and rolling around on the floor for a few moments.

Assange will never be convicted in US federal court. The Pentagon papers case has already established the precedent concerning publication of such info, and the court decided that the value to the citizens to know the truth about their governmetns activity outweighed any actual government interest.
quote:
Some stations are airing the school board shooter getting shot multiple times and rolling around on the floor for a few moments.


Which ones? So far, CNN isn't airing it.

There is a big difference between releasing the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks.

The Pentagon Papers are tiny in volume when compared to the vast amount of sensitive information leaked to Assange. Also, they were made public record when a senator read them on the senate floor. Plus, they only concerned the US government's involvement in Vietnam. Ellsburg copied and leaked them because Johnson and his administration were recklessly expanding the war.

On the other hand, massive amounts of classified information covering a variety of different issues was leaked to Assange simply because it was classified. It doesn't benefit anyone, there is no moral reasoning behind it, and it actually puts a lot of lives in danger by exposing such sensitive information. It jeopardizes national security whereas the Pentagon Papers were simply embarrassing for the Johnson administration.

The intent of Wikileaks is malicious, and that's the major difference. When journalism has a malicious intent, it is no longer journalism. The US could work a deal with Sweden to extradite Assange to stand trial. Manning is a traitor who will most likely be found guilty and possibly executed for treason.

*Correction: CNN is showing more of the shooting video. However, they are not showing the man shoot himself. Also, my other examples still stand.
quote:


There is a big difference between releasing the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks.

The Pentagon Papers are tiny in volume when compared to the vast amount of sensitive information leaked to Assange. Also, they were made public record when a senator read them on the senate floor. Plus, they only concerned the US government's involvement in Vietnam. Ellsburg copied and leaked them because Johnson and his administration were recklessly expanding the war.

On the other hand, massive amounts of classified information covering a variety of different issues was leaked to Assange simply because it was classified. It doesn't benefit anyone, there is no moral reasoning behind it, and it actually puts a lot of lives in danger by exposing such sensitive information. It jeopardizes national security whereas the Pentagon Papers were simply embarrassing for the Johnson administration.

The intent of Wikileaks is malicious, and that's the major difference. When journalism has a malicious intent, it is no longer journalism. The US could work a deal with Sweden to extradite Assange to stand trial. Manning is a traitor who will most likely be found guilty and possibly executed for treason.

*Correction: CNN is showing more of the shooting video. However, they are not showing the man shoot himself. Also, my other examples still stand.


Exactly how is it malicious? Who is the target of the malice? Journalism and the concept of a free press are changing, and will continue to evolve.

The Pentagon Papers were read in the Congress after they began to appear in newspapers.

What can Assange, an Australian, be charged with in US federal court?
quote:
Exactly how is it malicious? Who is the target of the malice? Journalism and the concept of a free press are changing, and will continue to evolve.

The Pentagon Papers were read in the Congress after they began to appear in newspapers.

What can Assange, an Australian, be charged with in US federal court?


It's malicious because it doesn't benefit anyone other than Assange himself. It causes a lot of unnecessary embarrassment for the US and other governments by leaking personal conversations. It has damaged relations between the US and other countries and has the possibility to do even more damage.

So how does that benefit the American public and the world?

The Pentagon Papers served as beneficial information to the American public. Once the public knew how Johnson and his administration was handling the war, he quickly lost any support and stood no chance for re-election.

Releasing private conversations among diplomats and sensitive military material doesn't benefit anyone and has no journalistic value. It simply makes activists feel like they are getting something over on the American government by hurting international relations. It does more to put the public at risk than benefit.

As you pointed out, Assange is not American, so he has no interest in what may benefit the American people. He just likes pushing buttons and getting attention.

The US Attorney General is currently working on building a case against Assange. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know specifically what he can be charged with. However, I think he will be charged with something after the investigation.

Journalism and a free press is one thing. Recklessly endangering the public is something different. A free press is a right, but with that right comes responsibility. Irresponsibly releasing sensitive information with no regard to the potential risks is not true journalism.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:
What does it matter if we call him a journalist or a political actor? As cable news makes clear, the line between the two is already blurry.

Also, there's no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks have ever stolen anything. The leaks in the State Department and in our military intelligence (Bradley Manning) are troubling, but there's actually no law that prevents people from publishing classified material after it's been leaked, and even if there was, how would we enforce it on foreigners?


Assange received stolen government secrets. David Greenglass stole state secrets and got 15 years. He gave them to the Rosenburgs. They got the gas chamber.


Assange will suffer the same fate as Daniel Ellsberg.


Ellsburg committed a felony and a misdemeanor. The felony was classifying what he originally wrote. The misdemeanor was publicizing it.

Attorney-General Holder may or may not prosecute Assange. With this administration, I have my doubts. However, he has made many enemies and as more information is divulged, it will be worse. The French and Brits are angered. Be interesting if Saudi and Israeli intell join ranks to get him.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×