Assange is a creep and was manipulated as a tool by state actors but is still a journalist. I don't care what happens to him as an individual but for the sake of other journalists I hope he's not extradited or convicted based on publishing state secrets, helping his sources, etc.
Conversation
Replying to
You're not a journalist when you selectively edit and time disclosures to the political or economic advantage of someone you're collaborating with.
2
2
A journalist who's obtained private information assesses what parts if any have public interest relevance and promptly discloses those. Doesn't release non-public-interest secrets just to fuel smear campaigns or hold back disclosures for strategic timing.
1
1
Replying to
That's a very idealized view of how journalism works. Look at the Snowden leaks themselves. The journalists he gave the information took their own approaches to handling it and there was a lot of timing and a very particular selection of what they wanted to publish.
2
3
Replying to
Sure they shouldn't just dump it all at once. Assessing what to release, if anything needs redaction, etc. takes time and what has pressing public interest relevance changes with what issues are current.
1
1
But if your agenda is to harm a nation *and its people*, you are not doing journalism but the opposite. It's espionage and information warfare.
1
2
Replying to
I think Assange's motivation has been the decline of US power based on his perspective that US foreign policy is massively evil. He's so focused on that to the point that he has blinders on when it comes to other countries. Don't think that means he isn't a legitimate journalist.
1
Most journalists have an agenda. Few of them actually go into something with an open mind and publish a story based on what they found. They generally set out with a story in mind. They have political views and they have a motivation behind their work aside from uncovering truth.
1
1
Replying to
Yes, but is that agenda in line with serving a public interest or causing harm? Just because these two positions have been adopted by opposing political sides in the US doesn't make them equivalently political.
1
Replying to
I don't think US domestic policy is on his radar. Foreign policy is what he cares about and I think from his perspective he was acting in the international public interest. Right or wrong, I think he genuinely believed Hillary was far more likely to get the US into more wars.
1
I don't think he thought Trump would be good for the US but rather the opposite. From his perspective, US decline is a net positive internationally. China and various regional powers rising to fill the vacuum isn't on his radar. He's focused on US imperialism and that's about it.
There's a whole tankie/red-brown alliance industry around peddling this morally bankrupt narrative and it's all Russian funded and aimed at replacing one imperialist superpower with another rather than fixing anything.