This House believes Julian Assange is a journalist

Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government.[1]

At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder[2].

[1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005, http://usinfo.org/enus/media/pressfreedom/docs/freedomofpress.pdf

[2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.

Journalists fulfill a multitude of roles. Of course revealing information is part of that but only one part. Further, journalists do not reveal information, as Assange does, purely because it’s secret but within a wider narrative. It is however difficult to see what wider narrative Assange is pursuing. Realistically, there are some things that need to be confidential; diplomatic and military communications would come high up that list. Assange seems primarily interested in reveling things purely because they are secret. One of the curious things about Wikileaks is that, while some of it has been embarrassing, it has been published indiscriminately. The US Diplomatic Cables, the most famous of the leaks and the ones that caused the most debate, have mostly been described as embarrassing rather than reveling corruption or illegality. It’s difficult to see what journalistic goal such voyeurism could fulfill. 

We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier.

Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour.

Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age.

In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories[1]. New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same.  Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist.

[1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here.

A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries.  Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result.[1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy.

[1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302853.html

One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry[1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill[2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media.

A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment.

A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity.[3]

By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify[4]. This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists.

[1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here

[2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011.

[3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011, http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/142159/study-use-of-anonymous-sources-peaked-in-1970s-dropped-by-2008/

[4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010.

Historically, journalists have been protected from prosecution for espionage (Assange is threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act) whereas their sources were not. Assange is providing the information which he has acquired illegally. The fact that he, in turn, had a source does not qualify him as a journalist. Surely it makes more sense to view him as a source, someone simply providing information to the journalist of the Guardian, Times and elsewhere, who subsequently used the data in actual journalism. Assange doesn’t seem interested in Freedom of information as much as he is in simply causing trouble.

Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government.[1]

At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder[2].

[1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005, http://usinfo.org/enus/media/pressfreedom/docs/freedomofpress.pdf

[2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.

Journalists fulfill a multitude of roles. Of course revealing information is part of that but only one part. Further, journalists do not reveal information, as Assange does, purely because it’s secret but within a wider narrative. It is however difficult to see what wider narrative Assange is pursuing. Realistically, there are some things that need to be confidential; diplomatic and military communications would come high up that list. Assange seems primarily interested in reveling things purely because they are secret. One of the curious things about Wikileaks is that, while some of it has been embarrassing, it has been published indiscriminately. The US Diplomatic Cables, the most famous of the leaks and the ones that caused the most debate, have mostly been described as embarrassing rather than reveling corruption or illegality. It’s difficult to see what journalistic goal such voyeurism could fulfill. 

We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier.

Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour.

Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age.

In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories[1]. New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same.  Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist.

[1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here.

A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries.  Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result.[1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy.

[1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302853.html

One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry[1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill[2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media.

A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment.

A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity.[3]

By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify[4]. This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists.

[1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here

[2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011.

[3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011, http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/142159/study-use-of-anonymous-sources-peaked-in-1970s-dropped-by-2008/

[4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010.

Historically, journalists have been protected from prosecution for espionage (Assange is threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act) whereas their sources were not. Assange is providing the information which he has acquired illegally. The fact that he, in turn, had a source does not qualify him as a journalist. Surely it makes more sense to view him as a source, someone simply providing information to the journalist of the Guardian, Times and elsewhere, who subsequently used the data in actual journalism. Assange doesn’t seem interested in Freedom of information as much as he is in simply causing trouble.

Journalists are judged by far more than their ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge or information. The quality of their writing, the skills and contacts developed to acquire it, the training used to enter the trade (which incidentally would have included the difference between the legitimate use of privileged information and espionage) and many other characteristics.

Assange doesn’t seem to have taken any interest in any of this. He undertook no formal training – he studied but did not graduate in Physics – and worked as a computer programmer and hacker before founding Wikileaks. His interest in data seems to do with the technological side of the process rather than the ideas.

Were a printer in the same situation to attempt the same defence, it would be ignored. Assange is an irresponsible geek, self-proclaimed hacker and someone who clearly has no interest in, or understanding of, the notion that there are occasions when a responsible journalist does not release information, frequently out of concern for those whose lives it might engender.

His entire background has been in hacking, he is described as a cryptographer in articles written by or about him before the launch of Wikileaks. This sudden commitment to journalism seems awfully convenient in the event of the threat of a trial.

It is worth noting the people who are happy to say that he is a journalist – in addition to many other journalists around the world. He has received the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression award, the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, La Monde Person of the Year (2010)[1] and the Martha Gelhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011.[2] Wikipedia’s media partners include Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and El Pais. If we accept the idea that ‘by his works shall you know a man’ then the fact that Wikileaks has produced game changing information – and stories that have changed policy - on extra-judicial killings in Kenya, the dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire, the Church of Scientology, procedures at Guantanamo bay[3] and the financial dealings at Kaupthing and Julius Baer[4] – all before the revelations about the State Department imbroglio that is suddenly of interest to … well, to the State Department.

There are few other journalists in the word that could make such claims.

[1] AFP, 'Assange named Le Monde Man of the Year', ABC News, 24 December 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-24/assange-named-le-monde-man-of-the-year/1884984

[2] Deans, Jason, 'Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prise', guardian.co.uk, 2 June 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize

[3] Chivers, Tom, 'Wikileaks' 10 greateststories', The Telegraph, 18 October 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8070253/Wikileaks-10-greatest-stories.html

[4] The Economist, 'Be afraid' 9th December 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/17680643

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk.[1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”.[2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.”[3]

He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it."

Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff[4]. Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site.

It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher.

It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it.

Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up

[1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11930488

[2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/29/131664547/wikileaks-is-a-terror-outfit-rep-peter-king

[3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010, http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/joe-biden-calls-julian-assange-a-hitech-terrorist-20101220-1923y.html

[4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/07/the_wikileaks_paradox.html

The source material is at least open to scrutiny, and anyone can decide if it appears to be genuine.

Equally many serious journalists take Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks team seriously enough and have no difficulty with trusting the stories put forward. If he is really a patsy of agents unknown then governments, notably the US, seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to silence him and the rest of the organisation. Presumably the banks blockading his site have reason to believe that he is a threat to their commercial interests, otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time to give him the added credibility.

The very fact that the people he attacks take him sufficiently seriously to have taken the actions they have would seem to add a lot of weight to his argument and suggest strongly that the sources are quite genuine. 

The more likely explanation is that the political classes of many nations simply do not know how to respond to this new kind of journalism which can neither be bought nor bullied and, unlike the traditional media, can be based anywhere in the world. As a result they use frightening words like “Terrorist” and “Espionage” in an attempt to discredit him.

News organisations provide a variety of functions, from reporting the weather to breaking news. Even the most hardened investigative outlet does not dedicate itself exclusively to revealing classified information. It appears to have no interest in what that information is or whether its disclosure causes more harm than good, the sole interest is that it is classified.

That isn’t journalism, at best it’s prurience and, at worst, egocentricity – ‘I know something you don’t know’. The fallout for people’s jobs, liberty and safety appears not to interest those involved.

Their own ‘About Us’ section makes a point of stating that “We accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information[1].” Interestingly, the whole of the rest of the page talks about maintaining anonymity for both readers and sources and little else. It provides screeds of text about themselves, a free press and the importance of releasing classified information. Unusually for a media organisation, there are no details about how to complain if a reader feels they or someone else has been misrepresented. This means that Wikileaks is denying someone’s freedom of speech by not giving them a right to reply and have corrections published.

In an age where even the most stentorian paper of record enshrines such rights, one might assume that such devout proclaimers of free speech would shout it from their mast head. Instead, their Chat page is mostly full of dire warnings that security forces are watching the reader’s every keystroke. Hardly encouraging for the little guy wishing to clear their name.

[1] The link to the page is here.

The fact that Wikileaks specialises in one form of news gathering is hardly revolutionary – a little like saying magazines specialise in features or blogs tend to be dominated by opinion pieces. The idea, however, that journalists should provide their source material so that readers can make a decision for themselves is one that constantly finds praise from audiences and many journalists regret they cannot provide because of the pressures of printable space or broadcast schedules.

At the time of writing, the lead item on Wikileaks’s front page read;

• WikiLeaks: 542 days of banking blockade - no process
   
• Assange: 539 days detainment - no charge
   
• Manning: 737 days in jail - no trial
   
• Grand Jury: 622 days US secret Grand Jury into WikiLeaks - no transparency

If the purpose of a news organisation is to hold account the powerful and act as an independent check on the use of that power then Assange would certainly seem to be having an impact.

By contrast, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Leveson Inquiry is now months into an investigation focussing on the largest media organisation in the world, which stands charged of breaking not so much the basic principles of good journalism but, rather, those of simple humanity. Surprisingly, the publisher of this group, Rupert Murdoch, remains at liberty on the basis that he had no idea what was going on in his empire.

The first group pointed out the failings of the powerful, the latter invited them to parties. It is interesting to consider which one comes truer to the spirit of journalism.