Is WikiLeaks a journalistic institution or a semi-professional agitator?

[Renew Deal]

I've noticed that most of the discussion is around the fact that information was leaked and the sources of the leak rather than the content of the leaks. There are comments out there that Assange should be arrested and WikiLeaks should be shut down (or droned).

I think we need to determine what WikiLeaks actually is. Are they a "modern" form of reporting? Are they equivalent to the NY Times or CNN? Are they some sort of agitators dealing in criminally obtained information?

The answer to that is important. If we consider WikiLeaks reporters, then they have a right to free press (in the US), and should be free from criticism about releasing the documents unless they were negligent in protecting peoples lives. If we consider them criminals, then they should be treated as such. I'm still not convinced either way.

[zigzagzed]

1. Journalism is more than raw facts

I've always conceived of journalism as something more than pushing raw, unfiltered facts into the public sphere. Journalists should vet and analyze the information. They should strive towards creating the most accurate possible representation of the truth, and their loyalty lies to the truth rather than to partisan or sectarian or financial causes. The New York Times and the Guardian practice journalism when they report on the WikiLeaks release by putting them in a broader geopolitical context. I'm not sure if I'm persuaded by arguments that WikiLeaks counts as journalism.

[Renew Deal]

2. I lean on the side that they are more than "journalists."

They are organized by a guy with a history of criminal behavior who has stated that he hates privacy. He wants certain outcomes based on the stuff he releases. And he's not completely honest. If he was, there wouldn't be a need to keep the "insurance" file. He would just release it.