So Wikileaks' Work is Not Journalism? (A few thoughts)

[snot]

I'm not really so interested in the U.S. media's opinion as to why Wikileaks' work is not "journalism."

These are the media who uttery FAILED to report the fact that the aluminum tubes claimed by the Bush admin to have been purchased for use in a nuclear weapons program were in fact ill-adapted for such use and were more likely purchased for other reasons (a report I heard only on the BBC). On the contrary, instead of verifying the Bush admin's claim, The NYT chose to publish Judith Miller's completely uncritical – if not complicit – story, "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts" – a story substantially based on the deliberate leaking of classified information by Scooter Libby, the chief of staff of Vice President Dick Cheney!. (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/health/article-printpage.html?res=9402EFDE1E3EF93BA3575AC0A9649C8B63; https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes )

So it's journalism to re-publish without question leaked material produced by persons known to have spoken in furtherance of their own political agenda, but it's not journalism to re-publish leaked material produced by persons who to all appearances had no agenda other than to tell the truth.

The corporate media are also the same "journalists" who failed to analyze Bush admin claims far enough to realize that a half-dozen specious reasons to invade Iraq did not add up to one good one – something obvious to those of us who protested against the invasion in "the biggest global peace protests before a war actually started." (see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iraq_war_protests )

Publishing facts is at least as important a component of journalism as the corporate media's much-vaunted "analysis."

In truth, we must ALL be journalists, which means we must ALL have access to the facts.

[Recursion]

1. There's usually a bright line between publishing and journalism

That is, publishers are not journalists, and journalists are not publishers; by those definitions I can buy the idea that Assange is a publisher.

But, I definitely think you have a point, and Wikileaks may be a template for journalism in the early 21st century.

[snot]

5. I need clarification on the legal distinction between journalists and publishers, then, if

the distinction matters for First Amendment purposes . . . . but does it?

[Recursion]

6. I don't think it's a legal distinction

It's a professional one. People who publish eg newspapers are not supposed to be involved directly in the journalism (though obviously they do have an impact, particularly in whom they hire and what stories they fund, and they have final editorial control).

The courts have been pretty cautious about legally drawing a distinction between "journalists" and "non-journalists"

[snot]

7. So whether Wikipedia are "journalists" is basically a distraction? But

it's not just "journalists" raising this argument. RW'er's are speaking as though Wikileaks doesn't qualify for 2st Amdt protection BECAUSE they're not journalists.

Also, after what the Supremes did in Citizens et al., I wouldn't put it past them to re-define some things.

[Recursion]

8. Everyone qualifies for 2nd amendment protection :)

Presuming that meant "1st", the government has never successfully prosecuted an intermediary like this for publishing information; they tried once and it went down in flames. I suspect this is a lot of bluster to soothe fragile State Department egos.

[snot]

10. Yes, "1st."

[mike_c]

2. Daniel Ellsberg was not a journalist, either-- this will go nowhere....

The Supreme Court has already settled this issue in New York Times Co. v. United States. Ellsberg too was charged under the Espionage Act and all charges were ultimately dismissed.

[Democrats_win]

3. oops, doulbe post.

[Democrats_win]

4. With the M$M attacks on Wikileaks, we see that the M$M remains in that jingoism mode.

They are attacking wikileaks the same way they attacked any fact that might have kept us out of Bush's elective war in Iraq. It's the blood lust of the M$M. Being journalists is a good idea, but in the end, no Americans are listing. Karma is going to have a field day with this country. The Bush depression was the first act.

[Octafish]

9. THAT's what Democracy is all about.

"In truth, we must ALL be journalists, which means we must ALL have access to the facts."

That's Pulitzer material, snot. Thank you!

[snot]

11. *gulp* THANKS

that means a lot to me, coming from you!

[snot]

12. Thanks for the feedback, everyone (and more is welcome!)--

I'll use it to refine this for a blog post (p.m. me if you'd like the location).

[MelissaB]

13. Off to the greatest with you.

:kick:

[nashville_brook]

14. Nailed it -- you get the A in today's media studies class

I didn't say journalism class because I'm not sure there are any anymore