I grow weary from reading columns and tweets dedicated to defending Assange on the basis that delegitimizing his journalistic credentials is a dangerous attack on the press and its freedoms. It is not an attack on journalism/journalists; it's calling a rotten egg a rotten egg.
Up until 2010 when news outlets forced his hand, Wikileaks never applied journalistic standards to the materials it received.(3) It's not clear that they even have journalistic protocols in place to ensure integrity to maintain the public's trust. To wit, Assange's false assurance that the source of the DNC emails wasn't Russia.(4)
And how do we treat his actions of spreading the flames of conspiracy behind Seth Rich's suicide?(5)
No, I tell you, Assange is not a journalist. He is a liar and a self-serving propagandist.
While it is convenient to dislike him because of his personality and his style, one should not presume that this is why his journalistic cred should be questioned -- that people point to his personality and style as evidence of false attacks on his journalism is, rather, a false consciousness.
It would be argued by many that he could be considered a bad journalist who nonetheless deserves protections of being a journalist. But he's accused of conspiring to hack the US government and in furtherance of this conspiracy, agreed to attempt to break a password. Journalists are free to receive stolen documents but not to participate in the crime of hacking or theft -- is where we are right now. In the affidavit (6) released, it clearly highlights that Assange's team was working directly to break the password. Is hacking now legal for journalists? At the very least, it pushes the gray areas of what is acceptable and legal, protected by the 1st Amendment.
Others would argue that his arrest is tantamount to silencing dissent/dissenting opinion, particularly against a repressive regime. This could be a persuasive argument were it not for two conditions: (1) his thesis in support of anarchy cannot be reconciled with representative democracy (one must choose one over the other); (2) his actions to effect his vision of society necessarily destroys ours. We seek not to silence his dissent; we seek to save our representative democracy from anarchy. He seeks to replace our society with his own.
There is a certain naivete in his vision of a perfect society that is alluring to many, but his dichotomy of pure transparency and pure opacity, is impossible; we are, after all, humans. There is a certain noble truth to Adam and Eve discovering shame, pointing to humankind's inevitable need to hide truths, especially from ourselves.
So let's be intellectually honest and admit that Julian Assange is not a journalist.
1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
2. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/426927-mueller-trump-campaign-officials-communicated-with-stone-on and https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/
3. https://www.wired.com/2011/02/wikileaks-book/
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
5. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11692056
6. https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-affidavit-support-assange-arrest
Assange is not a journalist and Wikileaks is not a journalistic entity; he is an anarchist and Wikileaks is his outlet to serve his propaganda -- his "extreme transparency", which, by the way, apparently excludes himself.
I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.
I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.
I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible. -- excerpts from The Journalist's Creed, Walter WilliamsThere is no fairness in his taking sides in the 2016 election. He deliberately suppressed leaks in 2016 that painted Russia negatively(1), while directly and indirectly communicating with people tied to the Trump campaign to maximize the effect of his release of stolen emails.(2) That's not the work of a journalist; that's the work of a self-serving propagandist working under the guise of journalism in search of its afforded protections.
Up until 2010 when news outlets forced his hand, Wikileaks never applied journalistic standards to the materials it received.(3) It's not clear that they even have journalistic protocols in place to ensure integrity to maintain the public's trust. To wit, Assange's false assurance that the source of the DNC emails wasn't Russia.(4)
And how do we treat his actions of spreading the flames of conspiracy behind Seth Rich's suicide?(5)
No, I tell you, Assange is not a journalist. He is a liar and a self-serving propagandist.
While it is convenient to dislike him because of his personality and his style, one should not presume that this is why his journalistic cred should be questioned -- that people point to his personality and style as evidence of false attacks on his journalism is, rather, a false consciousness.
It would be argued by many that he could be considered a bad journalist who nonetheless deserves protections of being a journalist. But he's accused of conspiring to hack the US government and in furtherance of this conspiracy, agreed to attempt to break a password. Journalists are free to receive stolen documents but not to participate in the crime of hacking or theft -- is where we are right now. In the affidavit (6) released, it clearly highlights that Assange's team was working directly to break the password. Is hacking now legal for journalists? At the very least, it pushes the gray areas of what is acceptable and legal, protected by the 1st Amendment.
Others would argue that his arrest is tantamount to silencing dissent/dissenting opinion, particularly against a repressive regime. This could be a persuasive argument were it not for two conditions: (1) his thesis in support of anarchy cannot be reconciled with representative democracy (one must choose one over the other); (2) his actions to effect his vision of society necessarily destroys ours. We seek not to silence his dissent; we seek to save our representative democracy from anarchy. He seeks to replace our society with his own.
There is a certain naivete in his vision of a perfect society that is alluring to many, but his dichotomy of pure transparency and pure opacity, is impossible; we are, after all, humans. There is a certain noble truth to Adam and Eve discovering shame, pointing to humankind's inevitable need to hide truths, especially from ourselves.
So let's be intellectually honest and admit that Julian Assange is not a journalist.
1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
2. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/426927-mueller-trump-campaign-officials-communicated-with-stone-on and https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/
3. https://www.wired.com/2011/02/wikileaks-book/
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
5. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11692056
6. https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-affidavit-support-assange-arrest
No comments:
Post a Comment