Why U.S. Journalists Aren’t Standing Up for WikiLeaks

Why Journalists Aren’t Standing Up for WikiLeaks
Three reasons that efforts to prosecute Julian Assange aren’t drawing more of an outcry about the First Amendment.
by Ben Adler
January 4, 2011

1. Refusal to engage in advocacy: American journalists, unlike many of their foreign counterparts, have a strong commitment to objectivity and nonpartisanship. At many mainstream media organizations, signing petitions is verboten, and many journalists impose such rules on themselves. According to Shapiro, who co-wrote the Columbia letter, when they circulated the document, “Some people said, ‘As a journalist, I make it my practice never to sign a petition.’ ” As an example, Bill Grueskin, the dean of academic affairs at Columbia’s Journalism School, did not sign. Asked why by NEWSWEEK, he said he’s “not much of one for signing group letters.”

2. Opposition to Assange’s purpose: That same notion of objectivity shared by journalists makes many of them suspicious of WikiLeaks’s journalistic bona fides. Assange has an advocacy mission: to disrupt the functioning of governments. Many investigative journalists, like the famous muckrakers at the turn of the last century, have had a similar orientation, says Shapiro, who wrote the book Shaking the Foundations: 200 Years of Investigative Journalism in America. “WikiLeaks springs from the same purpose as investigative journalism: a sense that the system is corrupt and the truth can be told,” says Shapiro. “It’s a reformist rather than radical agenda.” Even so, many mainstream reporters, editors, and producers might see associating with Assange as inappropriately endorsing an advocacy mission.

3. Opposition to Assange’s methods: Some journalists, while perhaps believing Assange should not be prosecuted, are so disgusted with his approach that they are reluctant to weigh in publicly. Sam Freedman, a journalism professor at Columbia University, did not sign the letter his colleagues circulated because, “I felt the letter did not adequately criticize the recklessness—the disregard for the consequences of human lives—of a massive dump of confidential info.” Freedman says prosecuting Assange would set a dangerous precedent for legitimate journalists. But many think, as Freedman does, that Assange did not exhibit the judiciousness that a journalist must when releasing classified information.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/04/why-journalists-aren-t-defending-julian-assange.html

Professor Freedman falsely charges WikiLeaks (and not the New York Times) with "disregard for human lives" for publishing documents that actually deleted information that could put people at risk and further claims that WikiLeaks engaged in "a massive dump of confidential info" echoing right-wing propaganda that 250,000 documents have been "dumped" on the public when in fact only about 2,000 redacted documents have been published.

Professor Freedman apparently believes that writing the truth is not a requirement for legitimate journalists while repeating falsifications clearly meets his high journalistic standards. BBI

certainly NOT exposed anything as significant as the Pentagon Papers. It kinda seems like he is more interested in promoting Julian Assange than in promoting any great truths. Maybe that's why most journalists aren't too impressed with what he has done.

WikiLeaks has brought to light a series of disturbing insinuations and startling truths in the last year, some earth-shattering, others simply confirmations of our darkest suspicions about the way the world works. Thanks to founder Julian Assange's legal situation in Sweden (and potentially the United States) as well as his media grandstanding, it is easy to forget how important and interesting some of WikiLeaks' revelations have been.

WikiLeaks revelations from 2010 have included simple gossip about world leaders: Russia's PM Vladimir Putin is playing Batman to President Dmitri Medvedev's Robin; Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is crazy and was once slapped by a Revolutionary Guard chief for being so; Libya's Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has a hankering for his voluptuous blond Ukrainian nurse; and France's President Nicholas Sarkozy simply can't take criticism.

CBS News Special Report: WikiLeaks

However, WikiLeaks' revelations also have many major implications for world relations. The following is a list of the more impactful WikiLeaks revelations from 2010, grouped by region.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026591-503543.html

Awards

Assange won the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Award.<7> He won the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media),<108> for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya by distributing and publicizing the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)'s investigation The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.<109><110> Accepting the award, Assange said, "It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented."<111>

In 2010 Assange was awarded the Sam Adams Award,<112><113> Readers' Choice in Time magazine's Person of the Year poll,<13> and runner-up for Person of the Year.<114>, and an informal poll of editors at Postmedia Network named him the top newsmaker for the year after six out of 10 felt Assange had "affected profoundly how information is seen and delivered".<115>

Le Monde named him person of the year with fifty six percent of the votes in their online poll. Le Monde is one of the five publications to cooperate with Wikileaks' publication of the recent document leaking.<116><117><118>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#Awards

Even though only a tiny fraction of the cables have been released, many critics promote the idea that they reveal "nothing new" and are therefore of no value. But even the cables released so far have contained important revelations about the U.S. and its allies.

Glenn Greenwald: What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x65699

I'm not convinced that you have looked into the Pentagon Papers or the WikiLeaks deep enough when you, or anyone else, makes a statement like that. I would challenge you to read the CBS article which was posted in response to your message.

Love Assange, hate Assange...it doesn't matter. I think one of the most dangerous things a person can do is be presented with a huge amount of important information and then so casually dismiss it. It does you a disservice. These are primary source documents. It smacks of a strange kind of apathy to discount them and it makes me wonder...and maybe you should think about this too...if you brush this aside so casually, what wouldn't you brush aside?

PB

these are some earth shattering revelations, I don't. You can keep telling me I should see it your way but I don't. So let's just agree to disagree. I think it's mostly a bunch of gossip and won't amount to a hill of beans. I believe I have a right to that opinion, whether you agree or not.

I also think it will cause more harm than good but hey, that's my opinion and we all know what opinions are like.

Follow first link in my sig line for a large compendium of "What has Assange (Wikileaks) done anyway?"

period.

are corporate sycophants. Maybe that's why they don't care for someone who is upstaging them by reporting what they don't

Australia's media union is staging a show of support for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Melbourne.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/23/3099859.htm

Reporters Without Borders to host WikiLeaks mirror site
http://en.rsf.org/reporters-without-borders-to-host-20-12-2010,39084.html

CPJ urges U.S. not to prosecute Assange
http://www.cpj.org/2010/12/cpj-urges-us-not-to-prosecute-assange.php

Journalists from more than 60 countries join in support for WikiLeaks
http://globalinvestigativejournalism.org/node/168

International Federation of Journalists statement
http://wlcentral.org/node/502

The "advocacy" pose is laughable on its face, with examples too numerous to cite. There's no shortage of "journalists" in print and in the electronic media who carry water for their sources in order to maintain precious access to "inside" information which turns out to be a pack of lies.

The "purpose" and "methods" arguments are similarly specious. If the allegedly "objective" "journalists" were truly concerned about the legitimate functioning of government and the lives lost through its dysfunction, they'd have been on the substance of the documents rather than conducting their parade of personal piety in honor of some mythic ethical standard.

U.S. journalists were up in arms on behalf of Judith Miller, when it was obvious she was protecting a source that lied to her. There's no indication that Assange, or the media outlets cooperating in the publication of the documents (remember them?), are promulgating forged documents or perpetrating any lies of commission or omission.

How's that reflection in the mirror doing for ya, Freedman, Newsweek and you, too, Adler?

Scum of the earth.

as I will post below

WHAT "journalists"?
The ones who lied us into 4,400 (at least) US deaths in Iraq and probably the end of our empire?
The ones who turned a war hero into a coward and vice versa in 2004?
Acorn?
Shirley Sherrod?
Immigration?

the list is getting endless.

One of several links regarding the dump:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/23/wikileaks_releases_four_hundred_thousand_iraq_war_docs/

If you want to read what a real journalist thinks of Wikileaks, read this explanation from the editor of El Paix, which is the Spanish newspaper that has "partnered" with WL in releasing the U.S diplomatic cables:

Why EL PAÍS chose to publish the leaks: Editor Javier Moreno explains the decision to publish the State Department cables, which expose on an unprecedented scale the extent to which Western leaders lie to their electorates

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Why/PAIS/chose/to/publish/the/leaks/elpepueng/20101223elpeng_3/Ten

It is well worth reading.

Per the Manning charge sheet...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33963588/Charge-Sheet-Pvt-Bradley-Manning

No, I suspect that some journalists might be smart enough to figure out that giving PFC Manning cetain software, and other activites, places Mr. Assange outside of the league of professional journalists. And into what I suspect is the rocket docket in VA.

And that's why we need wikileaks. Because there are people who simply believe what the government says in the absence of facts and despite evidence of malfeasance.

(And I do think there is one empaneled.)


"Among materials prosecutors are studying is an online chat log in which Private Manning is said to claim that he had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files. Private Manning is also said to have claimed that Mr. Assange gave him access to a dedicated server for uploading some of them to WikiLeaks.

Adrian Lamo, an ex-hacker in whom Private Manning confided and who eventually turned him in, said Private Manning detailed those interactions in instant-message conversations with him.

He said the special server’s purpose was to allow Private Manning’s submissions to “be bumped to the top of the queue for review.” By Mr. Lamo’s account, Private Manning bragged about this “as evidence of his status as the high-profile source for WikiLeaks.”

Wired magazine has published excerpts from logs of online chats between Mr. Lamo and Private Manning. Mr. Lamo described them from memory in an interview with The Times, but he said he could not provide the full chat transcript because the F.B.I. had taken his hard drive, on which it was saved."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=assange%20manning&st=cse


Now, are you disputing any specific charge that Manning is currently facing?

I look forward to the answer. It's a mystery to me why anyone on the left would oppose transparency that uncovers government lies.

in an exchange between Greenwald and Wired. Wired was forced to reveal there there is no unpublished information about Wikileaks or Assange in their chat logs. Which means, the chat logs have no evidence to support the claim you are repeating as truth.

Wired.com Admits: No Smoking Gun
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/30/932333/-Wired.com-Admits:-No-Smoking-Gun

You seem to think that what is published is not sufficient for a true bill.

You also seem to think that Manning hasn't given any statements.

You also seem to think that the chat logs are the sole source of forensic evidence.

The FBI, as I cited above, has Lamo's hard drive, and therefore, all the chat logs. You have no idea what's on/in them. And neither does Greenwald. And neither does Wired. And Greenwald citing Wired as a source for veracity is a bit, well, funny, isn't it?

You also have no idea what other evidence the government has. But I seriously doubt they are going on just chat logs.

I mean, have you read the charge sheet? You might try reading the specification 4 of charge 1--then you'd understand that the evidence against Manning didn't come from a chat log....

evidence unless Lamo is lying. Or should I say, lying again. lol

And Wired and the WaHo both have them in their entirety. :)

...of special treatment of Manning by Wikileaks / Assange.

Wired has declined to provide the full transcripts, as you would know if you had been following this case closely.

If not, just google "Glenn Greenwald Wikileaks" and you will find more information.

Furthermore, even IF Wikileaks gave Manning special treatment, how is that different from, say, the special treatment afforded to Deep Throat by Woodward and Bernstein? Or the special treatment given to Daniel Ellsworth when he provided copies of the Pentagon Papers?

Finally: You ask the question:

"Now, are you disputing any specific charge that Manning is currently facing? "

And I have to ask you, do you truly not see a difference in the role of Manning vs. the role of Assange? Really? You seem to want to equate the two of them: Bradley Manning, a member of the US armed forces, who (may have) leaked classified documents under his care; vs. Julian Assange, an Australian civilian, journalist and publisher, who released the documents received by Wikileaks to mainstream press organizations around the world and gave the US military and State Department the opportunity to redact information before it was published (they declined, as you must be aware).

You should resist the urge to equate Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Their roles in this event were quite different. Also you should consider whether that Grand Jury in VA ought to be thinking about indicting the New York Times as well. And hey, while we're at it, why not go after Le Monde, The Guardian, and the other international news organizations. Because hey, they're all under our jurisdiction, right?

Giving Manning the tools needed to send e-documents he wanted to release is technically no different than meeting a whistleblower in the lobby of a building (like, say, one who has a binder full of Pentagon papers) so they can hand over a brown envelope.

I hope the government rest its foolish espionage case on this kind of nonsense as I am confident it will go nowhere, and courts will eventually rule in favour of Wikileaks First Amendment rights.

He should try that argument.

And definitely, he should testify as to the prior meetings with Assange to obtain the 'tools.'

Absolutely.

I'm listening.

Odd, no?

More disinformation.

Almost like you were saying something substantive, rather than just your usual reveling in the hope that whistleblowers who revealed the dishonesty of government will be sent to jail and punished severely.

So what have you got against transparency?

Moved by author to here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=439&topic_id=114845&mesg_id=115931

Good thing you aren't a part of any jury.

propaganda authors.

Now, there's spin that the Pentagon would be proud of.

I call bullshit on the first statement. They don't make political statements? Then what the hell are pundits? Foxnews is a perfect example of subjective narrow mindedness presented as news. The CBN is the same way, wrapped up like CNN on God +1. If the M$M is so opposed to WL then why so many articles of the actual classified material in major American news outlets? Cherry picked, yes but still.

They biggest problem with the M$M is the same epidemic we see on Wall Street, it is the hypocrisy stupid.

Could have fooled me.

but man there aren't many...

We have journalists? You mean there are still some alive?!?!?! Where? Where?

- All UR jernLists R belong 2 us! (TheFilthyRich}

because to do so would endanger their corporate jobs. That is what you get with media consolidation. A consolidation of opinion as all opinions and concerns not supported by the employer are held back so one can continue to have a job.

conditioned, having only arisen after the end of World War II. Before World War II and espcially back in the 19th Century in the United States, print journalism was highly partisan and made no pretense to 'objectivity'.

But the notion of 'objectivity' also provides an excuse for journalists not to have to work hard at discerning the truth. A journalist can say that "some say global warming threatens human existence" but balance that statement with "some say that global warming is a trumped up threat." Note that the reports imply that this supposedly objective reporting of global warming has an equal proportion of proponents and detractors. But nowhere in those appeals to experts is there any attempt to divine whether global warming is a fact or not.

Same applies to allegations about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, except that in that case, the so-called 'objective media' (with a few exceptions like McClatchy and Knight Ridder) felt no obligation to report the substantial doubts in the intel and weapons proliferation control communities about Bush and Cheney's propaganda. The mass media functioned as 'stenographers to power' because, in 'objectively' reporting what Bush Admin officials said but not fact-checking it or, alternatively, failing to include reports of experts whose opinions did not match the Neocon propaganda, the media failed to discover and report the truth, which was that Iraq had possessed no WMD since 1992 or, at the very latest, 1995.

The mass (print) media gets no credit from me whatosever for good intentions and deserves the extinction that awaits it. Case in point: the "Los Angeles Times" (an erstwhile Tribune Corporation toady for the Bush Administration's lies that led to the war) now has a paid daily subscriber base of fewer than 1 million. Couldn't happen to a more cowardly group of pseudo journalists (Bob Scheer excepted). Los Angeles will be none the worse if the "LA Times" goes out of business (excpet for losing the Book Festival at UCLA that the Times sponsors).

Yes, it is problematic to hold objectivity above all else because then, you are given equal credence to whack job theories like the denial of global warming. It wasn't like this even in the 70s.

Your headline reads, "Why U.S. Journalists Aren’t Standing Up for WikiLeaks" maybe because your brain was trying to make sense of nonsense and added in "US".

The NW headline is ""Why Journalists Aren’t Standing Up for WikiLeaks" -- and that ignores all the journalists' orgs that have weighed in to support Wikileaks all over the world. So, Adler just ignored them all so he could provide an "explanation" for a fictitious lack of support. That's a pretty neat trick.

:wow:

been pretty much true.

Hopefully that will and needs to change.

What well respected journalist hasn't stood with Wikileaks?

Anyone?

Have they said anything in defense of Assange and WikiLeaks yet? If not, I hope they will.

I think some mainstream journalists, a minority, will defend Assange if and when the Obama administration tries to prosecute him.

I wonder what Democratic politicians will defend Assange and WikiLeaks if that happens.

He called Zinn a treasure so, we'll see what he's made of. Krugman stays pretty much to his own turf.

and the disgraceful display of the US media in faithfully transmitting the regime's lies in the run-up to the Iraq war. And their failure ever since to acknowledge that this was a war of aggression that they didn't do a thing to stop (which they might have merely by doing their supposed jobs).

See also, 2008 and their pretend surprise (or confession of total cluelessness) about the financial crash that was developed by the banksters in plain view for several years before it - gasp! - took everyone by surprise.

Establishment US journalists, with extremely few exceptions, are the craven kiss-asses at a royal court. Pravda actually had a censor, these people are happy to provide that service to power without need of one.

Look, over there! It's Britney Spears!!!

And NPR as well..they were complicit.

There are a few on the web, and Julian leads the pack...

Conditions for a major transfer of information always need to be set. This isn't true just with digital ionformation, it was also true when Daniel Ellsberg dumped TOP SECRET Pentagon documents.

As Wikipedia describes it...

In February 1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13..."

Well, it sounds to me as though arrangements had to be made, and were made over several months, to facilitate the transfer, and prepare for publication.

What I don't get is why some here now want to characterize arrangements that are necessary for a whistleblower to get the information to the press, as a criminal conspiracy to commit espionage against the United States!

Back in 1971, no-one dreamed that up, even with actual Top Secret documents involved. Yet nothing in the Wikileaks package is that highly classified (far as I know.)

Can we get more Orwellian than that, or are we nearing the sweet spot here?

for toeing the company line.

Yes, I'm sure our corporate outlets ignore these stories out of their respect for journalism, not because their owners want them to. That great respect for journalism is why they limited their discussion of this particular subject to sexual innuendo. Fucking Edward R. Murrows, the whole lot of 'em.

You're all on your own.