Reading your piece I get the feeling you consider journalists a special class of people, rather than someone fulfilling a journalistic endeavour. Calling someone by their profession is an abstraction, what if 'Bill the painter' was now a plumber, would his human rights change?
And boy does Julian outshine most of the spam peddling members of the press. Its insane you would sentence him to over a decades worth of torture for coming off as smug and anti American.
Maybe if mainstream Journalists remembered the following. The Fourth Estate: The notion that the Press is the fourth estate rests on the idea that the media’s function is to act as a guardian of the public interest and as a watchdog on the activities of government.
At the moment we all feel the words "public interest" and government are reversed, or at a minimum public interest is more elite focused and not so much public.
Assange a Journalist; maybe not, but doing work that needs to be done certainly Yes.
I think I agree with the first point (regarding the ethics and legality of Assange's actions), but I'm confused about the second one. Why exactly *shouldn't* he be considered a "journalist"?Because his actions may have been motivated by an anti-US political agenda? Of course, countless journalists are motivated by politics of all kinds. What exactly is the line that Assange crossed that disqualifies him from the title?
My feeling is that, in the world of 2022, it's pointless to try to define what a "journalist" is or isn't. It's a word as expansive and shape-shifting as "activist." It seems more honest to me nowadays to think of journalism as something that people *do* -- all sorts of people, to varying degrees, at different points -- rather than defining what people are.
Whatever else he did (or why he did it, or the bad things he may have done along the way), Assange did publish information of great interest -- which seems like an act of "journalism" even if it seems distasteful or unpleasant to call the man himself a "journalist." Or am I missing something?
First, thanks for reading and taking this seriously. The issue here isn't Assange's politics. It is whether it means anything special to be a journalist. If it doesn't, okay (I think it does)-- but then it makes no sense to have special constitutional protections for journalists. If it does mean something special, then some rules are going to need to apply to qualify for these protections. I think Assange's behavior (not his politics) disqualify him.
Here is news for u: there is no "special protection for journalists" under the law. The 1st Amendment protects EVERY1 and NOT just journalists. BTW investigative journalists regularly call their sources in Washington actively ask for -among other things-classified info. Or would u dare to deny that? The one thing that has prevented the prosecution of journalists under the espionage act was prosecutorial discretion and NOT a different level of protection under the law. The Obama DOJ came to the very SAME conclusion. U can look it up.
And as far as the "hacking goes" there is no allegation that even a SINGLE of the hundreds of thousands of documents that Manning leaked to WL were aquired through hacking. Even the prosecution merely allege that the unsuccessful attempt to crack a hash password would only have enabled Manning to log in anon since he ALREADY had legal accces to the docs he leaked due to her Top Secret clearance.
PS: U come across as pretty biased and poorly informed for a ...."journalist" and who exactly gave YOU of all people the power to determine who is and who is not a journalist hm? Considering that the label also includes the employees of the pro Replublican media propganda news channel FOX News and those merely rewriting newswire channel stories or repeating comments of gov spokespersons, the criteria aren`t exactly high for your profession.
PPS: Ever heard about independent and citizen journalists often found in autoriatarian states? Are they NOT journalists because they don`t have the luxery of letting a company lawyer check their every article before it is posted/printed hm?
PPPS: Its interesting that half of your article is reserved to critisize Assange for "not liking the US": Since when on earth was that EVER a requirement for any aspirering FOREIGN journalist/publisher? Sorry but that assertion is laughable.
With respect, I think you misread Bartnicki, among many other cases, and ignore, for instance, the raft of reporter shield laws that certainly provide special protections.
Sophisticated investigative journalists surely do NOT solicit classified information per se, although they are often provided it.
I do think helping a source crack a password is unprotected under Bartnicki, as well as unwise and unethical.
I am certainly not-- especially as a retired exec on a free Substack newsletter-- arguing against the existence of amateur or "citizen" journalists.
Again, appreciate your engaging with the piece even though we are unlikely to agree.
If u really think that journalists merely passively recieve information then u have never met an real investigative journalist or ever worked as one. They actively go out and SEEK stories, talk to insiders and yes they also ask for additional clarifying info if neccessary and yes sometimes that does include classified info.
Eg. the famous Guardian that cooperated with Assange in the publication of the Iraq and Afghan warlogs and the diplo cables was investigated under the terrorism laws in the UK for the Snowden publication.
PPS: Snowden signed an NDA, is an US citizen and beholden to their laws (well until he moved to Russia that is) and he leaked TOP SECRET docs while Manning merely leaked secret info. Go figure.
See? U cannot as u are nothing but an online scribbler who posts his opinions which is something most REAL journalists reserve for "opinion pieces" while they otherwise try to avoid it.
PS: I was talking about the espionage act as SUCH (and not shield laws) which makes the reciept and publication of classified information illegal for EVERY1 not entitled to handle it and yes that does include journalists.
BTW many journalism unions+organisations such as Reporters without Borders and @IFJGlobal which alone represents 600.000 journalists worldwide share my pov, oppose the Assange extradition and disagree with u. I think they are FAR better qualified to argue this point then u are.
Thanks for the response. I’m ignorant of both the law and the finer details of Assange’s case, but I understand that having special constitutional protections for journalists does require drawing definitional lines.
But the courts are only half the picture. I think you’re also arguing in this post that we (meaning both the journalism world and the broader public) shouldn’t think of Assange as a journalist or his actions as constituting journalism. That’s where I have a problem. Not because I’m a big fan of Assange, but because I don’t think it accurately describes our current reality. The essence of What a Journalist Is has mutated furiously in all directions since the internet took over the world -- is still evolving at a pace that defies any attempt to circumscribe it semantically. We can *say* Assange isn’t a journalist, or O’Keefe, or Joe Rogan, or whoever, but at some point it becomes functionally equivalent to arguing about who’s really a Christian or a Leftist or any other disputed semantic category. I’d rather think in terms of what constitutes journalism as an activity rather than who deserves to be labeled a “journalist.”
(Though I realize bifurcating the question in this way is kind of a cop out, because the courts also have to deal with the practical reality of a changing world and the changing meaning of journalism. There’s no easy way out, which is yet another reason this field drives me out of my mind.)
Anyway, keep up the Substack — always enjoy your posts!
Thanks again. Certainly agree it’s changing, and not trying to protect elites at all. I would certainly consider Rogan an opinion journalist, for instance. But O’Keefe, as an example, is surely wrong, in my view, if he really thinks news orgs and “intelligence agencies” are interchangeable. And lines do need to be drawn if journalism is to remain a protected activity.
There is no legal defintion of who is and who is not a journalist. Its not up for the gov or the Ministry of Justice of any country to define that either even though gov reps regularly hand out press agreditations for press conferences to employees of media outlets who report favourable about them.
Super analysis and great piece- thanks!
Reading your piece I get the feeling you consider journalists a special class of people, rather than someone fulfilling a journalistic endeavour. Calling someone by their profession is an abstraction, what if 'Bill the painter' was now a plumber, would his human rights change?
And boy does Julian outshine most of the spam peddling members of the press. Its insane you would sentence him to over a decades worth of torture for coming off as smug and anti American.
Maybe if mainstream Journalists remembered the following. The Fourth Estate: The notion that the Press is the fourth estate rests on the idea that the media’s function is to act as a guardian of the public interest and as a watchdog on the activities of government.
At the moment we all feel the words "public interest" and government are reversed, or at a minimum public interest is more elite focused and not so much public.
Assange a Journalist; maybe not, but doing work that needs to be done certainly Yes.
I think I agree with the first point (regarding the ethics and legality of Assange's actions), but I'm confused about the second one. Why exactly *shouldn't* he be considered a "journalist"?Because his actions may have been motivated by an anti-US political agenda? Of course, countless journalists are motivated by politics of all kinds. What exactly is the line that Assange crossed that disqualifies him from the title?
My feeling is that, in the world of 2022, it's pointless to try to define what a "journalist" is or isn't. It's a word as expansive and shape-shifting as "activist." It seems more honest to me nowadays to think of journalism as something that people *do* -- all sorts of people, to varying degrees, at different points -- rather than defining what people are.
Whatever else he did (or why he did it, or the bad things he may have done along the way), Assange did publish information of great interest -- which seems like an act of "journalism" even if it seems distasteful or unpleasant to call the man himself a "journalist." Or am I missing something?
First, thanks for reading and taking this seriously. The issue here isn't Assange's politics. It is whether it means anything special to be a journalist. If it doesn't, okay (I think it does)-- but then it makes no sense to have special constitutional protections for journalists. If it does mean something special, then some rules are going to need to apply to qualify for these protections. I think Assange's behavior (not his politics) disqualify him.
Here is news for u: there is no "special protection for journalists" under the law. The 1st Amendment protects EVERY1 and NOT just journalists. BTW investigative journalists regularly call their sources in Washington actively ask for -among other things-classified info. Or would u dare to deny that? The one thing that has prevented the prosecution of journalists under the espionage act was prosecutorial discretion and NOT a different level of protection under the law. The Obama DOJ came to the very SAME conclusion. U can look it up.
And as far as the "hacking goes" there is no allegation that even a SINGLE of the hundreds of thousands of documents that Manning leaked to WL were aquired through hacking. Even the prosecution merely allege that the unsuccessful attempt to crack a hash password would only have enabled Manning to log in anon since he ALREADY had legal accces to the docs he leaked due to her Top Secret clearance.
PS: U come across as pretty biased and poorly informed for a ...."journalist" and who exactly gave YOU of all people the power to determine who is and who is not a journalist hm? Considering that the label also includes the employees of the pro Replublican media propganda news channel FOX News and those merely rewriting newswire channel stories or repeating comments of gov spokespersons, the criteria aren`t exactly high for your profession.
PPS: Ever heard about independent and citizen journalists often found in autoriatarian states? Are they NOT journalists because they don`t have the luxery of letting a company lawyer check their every article before it is posted/printed hm?
PPPS: Its interesting that half of your article is reserved to critisize Assange for "not liking the US": Since when on earth was that EVER a requirement for any aspirering FOREIGN journalist/publisher? Sorry but that assertion is laughable.
Lets see how u respond ...if u dare to.
Thanks for reading.
With respect, I think you misread Bartnicki, among many other cases, and ignore, for instance, the raft of reporter shield laws that certainly provide special protections.
Sophisticated investigative journalists surely do NOT solicit classified information per se, although they are often provided it.
I do think helping a source crack a password is unprotected under Bartnicki, as well as unwise and unethical.
I am certainly not-- especially as a retired exec on a free Substack newsletter-- arguing against the existence of amateur or "citizen" journalists.
Again, appreciate your engaging with the piece even though we are unlikely to agree.
https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1390572214848835586
If u really think that journalists merely passively recieve information then u have never met an real investigative journalist or ever worked as one. They actively go out and SEEK stories, talk to insiders and yes they also ask for additional clarifying info if neccessary and yes sometimes that does include classified info.
Eg. the famous Guardian that cooperated with Assange in the publication of the Iraq and Afghan warlogs and the diplo cables was investigated under the terrorism laws in the UK for the Snowden publication.
PPS: Snowden signed an NDA, is an US citizen and beholden to their laws (well until he moved to Russia that is) and he leaked TOP SECRET docs while Manning merely leaked secret info. Go figure.
See? U cannot as u are nothing but an online scribbler who posts his opinions which is something most REAL journalists reserve for "opinion pieces" while they otherwise try to avoid it.
PS: I was talking about the espionage act as SUCH (and not shield laws) which makes the reciept and publication of classified information illegal for EVERY1 not entitled to handle it and yes that does include journalists.
BTW many journalism unions+organisations such as Reporters without Borders and @IFJGlobal which alone represents 600.000 journalists worldwide share my pov, oppose the Assange extradition and disagree with u. I think they are FAR better qualified to argue this point then u are.
PPS: u are an exec what? An ex exec editor?
Thanks for the response. I’m ignorant of both the law and the finer details of Assange’s case, but I understand that having special constitutional protections for journalists does require drawing definitional lines.
But the courts are only half the picture. I think you’re also arguing in this post that we (meaning both the journalism world and the broader public) shouldn’t think of Assange as a journalist or his actions as constituting journalism. That’s where I have a problem. Not because I’m a big fan of Assange, but because I don’t think it accurately describes our current reality. The essence of What a Journalist Is has mutated furiously in all directions since the internet took over the world -- is still evolving at a pace that defies any attempt to circumscribe it semantically. We can *say* Assange isn’t a journalist, or O’Keefe, or Joe Rogan, or whoever, but at some point it becomes functionally equivalent to arguing about who’s really a Christian or a Leftist or any other disputed semantic category. I’d rather think in terms of what constitutes journalism as an activity rather than who deserves to be labeled a “journalist.”
(Though I realize bifurcating the question in this way is kind of a cop out, because the courts also have to deal with the practical reality of a changing world and the changing meaning of journalism. There’s no easy way out, which is yet another reason this field drives me out of my mind.)
Anyway, keep up the Substack — always enjoy your posts!
Thanks again. Certainly agree it’s changing, and not trying to protect elites at all. I would certainly consider Rogan an opinion journalist, for instance. But O’Keefe, as an example, is surely wrong, in my view, if he really thinks news orgs and “intelligence agencies” are interchangeable. And lines do need to be drawn if journalism is to remain a protected activity.
There is no legal defintion of who is and who is not a journalist. Its not up for the gov or the Ministry of Justice of any country to define that either even though gov reps regularly hand out press agreditations for press conferences to employees of media outlets who report favourable about them.