Do you consider him a journalist or a document dumper, with Wikileaks a mail box?

I could replicate wikileaks' functionality and advertise its existence in the hope of attracting uploads. Would that make me a journalist?

No. Of course journalism proper is hard to find these days, obscured as it is by all the corporate shills and entertainers. But some pretty serious commentators like Robertson and Varafakis consider A to be a legit journalist. I haven’t followed the case closely enough.

Obviously a vexed question. My elder son was a journalism student ten years ago (although he hasn’t gone into the profession), But at the time he was critical of Assange for appealing to press freedom when he didn’t have to conform to any of the conventions (at least I think that’s what he said.) I’m not against him being released, I agree with the Australian government that Assange has paid the price. But I’m not an admirer.

And beyond whether he’s a journalist, he’s a symbol - a symbol of the struggle against the mendacious corrupt establishment and the lies and coverups of the military-industrial complex. For which reason, criticize him at your peril :yikes:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a couple of years he runs for the Australian Greens. He'd be a shoo-in.

Gift link to Washington Post wrap on his release.

Worth noting that the Walkley Foundation recognized Wikileaks and Assange in 2019:

16 April 2019, Sydney

In 2011, Wikileaks, with Julian Assange as its editor, received a Walkley Award in Australia for its outstanding contribution to journalism. Walkley judges said Wikileaks applied new technology to “penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup”. One of those many inconvenient truths was the exposure by video of US helicopter attacks in Baghdad that killed 11 civilians including two Reuters journalists.

Many mainstream journalists worked with Assange’s material to publish their own reports including media outlets such as the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in Australia, The Guardian in the United Kingdom, The New York Times in the US, El Pais in Spain, Le Monde in France and Der Spiegel in Germany. There has been no attempt by the US Government to prosecute any of those journalists involved. …

https://www.walkleys.com/board-statement-4-16/

As a sideline, I worked as a contributor and feature writer for almost 20 years and I ghost wrote speeches and papers for various folk. I watched news and comment industry (print) eat itself and die around me as it raged against changing times and fading political literacy. I guess the term journalism is flexible.

I wonder if A will be alive this time next year. No doubt he now has a platform beyond even the dreams of Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

He looked ok on the news footage - a lot more middle-aged but then he’s 52. I don’t see any reason to expect he’s at risk of imminent death. And I don’t know how much mileage he’ll get out of his life story. We’ll see, I guess. (You know that obnoxious toad Clive Palmer is bringing Tucker Carlson to Australia, right? Although Carlson’s had his day, I would hope.)

Journalism is not a crime, and Evan went to Russia to do his job as a reporter —risking his safety to shine the light of truth on Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine. Shortly after his wholly unjust and illegal detention, he drafted a letter to his family from prison, writing: “I am not losing hope.”

...we will continue to stand strong against all those who seek to attack the press or target journalists—the pillars of free society. — Biden

Hmm.

Do you think Wikileaks was a bona fide media organisation?

https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html

I agree the citations are impressive, that's why I mentioned the Walkley Award.

This NY Times piece, by independent film-maker Alex Gibney, sums up the kinds of issues many had with Assange, prior to his long incarceration (gift link).

Do you think Wikileaks was a bona fide media organisation? — Wayfarer

They published and presented important information to the public, so they were obviously a media organization. Who decides what criteria counts as 'bona fide" in that context?

You seem to sit in judgment of Assange, yet you have not said what crime you think he committed.

Who decides what criteria counts as 'bona fide" in that context? — Janus

That's the question I'm asking. I did comment that the NY Times, Guardian, etc, would probably not have published classified documents stolen from military organisations, although after Wikileaks did so, they were then able to reference them, as they had been put in the public domains.

There's also the famous 28,000 word hatchet job by his putative biographer Sean O'Hagan - 2014, London Review of Books.

Didn't see that. I said already, I believe Assange has paid the price for what he did, and that it's great to see his ordeal come to an end. But I'm very sceptical about him being lionised as a homecoming hero and champion of press freedom.

What makes you think those organizations would not have published them?

Because if they did, the publishers and journalists would like have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets act. Let's not overlook the fact that the condition of Assange's release was his pleading guilty to that. Maybe the reason that Wikileaks has been lauded by media organisations is that it took the fall for the release of a lot of top secret information in a way they never would have dared to do. (Also noticed that the official site has yet to be updated with news of his release, by the way.)

The point of the O'Hagan piece is showcasing Assange's narcissism and incipient sociopathy. If accurate, this may have more significant implications than the payback of the vested interests we've witnessed so far. But as I say I haven't made a study of Assange and his place in media.

I've only read press pieces and profiles, over the years. Liz Lette was on ABC talkback the other day, saying he used to stay with her and Geoffrey Robertson in London prior to his incarceration. She was overall positive, but thinks he's on the autism spectrum and lacks insight into the impact of his actions and words on others. Despite his supporters saying there's no proof that Wikileaks disclosures resulted in deaths, it's indubitable that they disclosed the ID's of many individuals in the middle East because of Assange's refusal to redact those details, and put them in harm's way. Even Ed Snowden criticized that.

Because of they did, the publishers and journalists would like have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets act. — Wayfarer

I doubt that would happen to a large media organization that published leaked documents. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that it would happen?

I did comment that the NY Times, Guardian, etc, would probably not have published classified documents stolen from military organisations... — Wayfarer

The difference for me is that when a large media corporation decides to publish in a way that is strongly contrary to government interests, they are prepared to fight the legal battles required to back that decision (e.g. Watergate). Assange was obviously playing a dangerous game, and it has cost him. I actually don't see how you can publish this sort of thing without incurring a backlash. Perhaps it is only a question of whether and in what form you are able to handle that backlash.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that it would happen? — Janus

Maybe the fact that they didn't! Ever see that excellent Speilberg movie with Meryl Streep as Katherine Graham, owner of the Washington Post, over the publication of the Pentagon papers? The Post. Gave a good overview of the dangers involved.

Assange was obviously playing a dangerous game, and it has cost him. — Leontiskos

More or less 'publish and be damned'. And he was!

Journalism is not a crime, and Evan went to Russia to do his job as a reporter —risking his safety to shine the light of truth on Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine. Shortly after his wholly unjust and illegal detention, he drafted a letter to his family from prison, writing: “I am not losing hope.”

...we will continue to stand strong against all those who seek to attack the press or target journalists—the pillars of free society. — Biden


Hmm. — Banno

What a good example of double standards.

If a reporter is revealing something about adversary it's OK, but if it touches us then it's not OK.

Maybe the fact that they didn't! — Wayfarer

Who didn't do what? I haven't seen the movie you mentioned. so I'm not clear what "dangers" you are referring to. According to the information I have Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the papers. was initially charged with theft of government documents, espionage and conspiracy. but the charges were subsequently dismissed, while the New York Times, who first brought the attention of the papers to the public, was not charged with anything. So, I'm not at all sure as to what you are referring to.

Have a read of this:

The record suggests that the government has historically been largely unsuccessful, or simply unwilling, to prosecute national security leaks: “Excluding cases of true espionage, all those thousands upon thousands of national security-related leaks to the media have yielded a total of roughly a dozen criminal prosecutions in U.S. history.” Only one espionage case in recent history has been brought against “anyone other than the initial source,” and no journalists in the past half-century have been prosecuted for publishing leaked information.

I doubt that would happen to a large media organization that published leaked documents. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that it would happen? — Janus

I meant, I don't have evidence of it, because the 'large media organisations' would generally be extremely careful about publishing such materials, if at all. That's what I meant by them not doing it.

As for the general question, it's obviously a delicate balance. I already said:

Of course the crimes which Wikileaks exposed deserve to be exposed, and governments ought not to use secrecy as a shield for wrong-doing, which they inveterately will. It’s a balance of ‘right to know’ vs ‘need for confidentiality’. But then how much ‘transparency’ could be expected from, for example, the CCP, or from Russia? Presumably if one of Assange’s counterparts had hacked and leaked information from the Russian FSB - well, he or she would face a fate much worse than legal threats, and we in the West would probably never even know their name. — Wayfarer

At the time Wikileaks leaked the Democratic National Committee files, there were strong grounds for believing that these had been fed to them by Russia in an attempt to have Trump elected. Indeed, when Assange's release was announced, one of the Putin stooge outlets commended Assange for his 'great service to journalism'. You can bet it would have been vastly different had he leaked, say, top secret information on Russian war planning for the Ukraine invasion. Assange might have expected a dose of novichok instead of congrats.

Wikileaks is a hamster, no?

- The whole premise that leaking classified documents never results in government action just seems prima facie naive. If your article is to be believed then probably what is happening in many of these cases are private settlements or non-legal consequences. I would prefer an analysis from a source without a vested interest.

there were strong grounds for believing that these had been fed to them by Russia in an attempt to have Trump elected. — Wayfarer

Can you provide a link to reliable information backing that claim up?

I haven't claimed that no action has ever been taken against those involved with leaking documents. Perhaps you are right about private settlements or non-legal consequences. Can you cite any evidence to support that speculation, or any cases that remotely resemble the US treatment of Julian Assange?

Can you provide a link to reliable information backing that claim up? — Janus