How could journalists disagree with Assange?

By Steve Outing

Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, during a Democracy Now interview:

“We have clearly stated motives, but they are not antiwar motives. We are not pacifists. We are transparency activists who understand that transparent government tends to produce just government. And that is our sort of modus operandi behind our whole organization, is to get out suppressed information into the public, where the press and the public and our nation’s politics can work on it to produce better outcomes.”

(Hat-tip to Peggy Holman of Journalism That Matters for pointing this out.)

Hmmm, a slight variation would sound like a worthy goal for … the news media!

As we begin another year of media transformation, I can’t help but feel a bit depressed about the state of the (mainstream) news media here in the U.S., and the American reaction to Wikileaks’ action is a big part of the problem. As the federal government and many politicians line up for the scalp of Julian Assange, support for Wikileaks seems to be coming mostly from overseas, and American journalists’ support is far weaker than I’d like to see.

  • The editor of Spanish newspaper El Pais has written a wonderful essay: “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.” … A highlight: “The incompetence of Western governments, and their inability to deal with the economic crisis, climate change, corruption, or the illegal war in Iraq and other countries has been eloquently exposed in recent years. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, we also know that our leaders are all too aware of their shameful fallibility, and that it is only thanks to the inertia of the machinery of power that they have been able to fulfill their democratic responsibility and answer to the electorate.”
  • A Romanian news organization has given Assange a Press Freedom Award. Previously, he has won the Economist Index of Censorship Award (2008) and the Amnesty International UK Media Awards (2009). He also won the Sam Adams Award in 2010; that’s a U.S. award granted annually by retired CIA officers to honor an intelligence professional who has taken a stand for integrity and ethics (often awarded to whistleblowers).
  • Le Monde (France) named Assange its “Person of the Year.” Meanwhile, U.S.-based Time magazine named Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg its “Person of the Year,” despite Time’s own website reader poll coming out clearly in favor of Assange as the best choice. (Time magazine managing editor Richard Stengel’s statement in an interview, “Assange might not even be on anybody’s radar six months from now,” is telling of how old-media journalists don’t seem to grasp the impact that Wikileaks and its successors have and will continue to have on altering their profession.)
  • In Australia (Assange’s home), hundreds of journalists, lawyers, and academics loudly condemned the prime minister for calling the leaks “an illegal act” and suggesting that Assange’s Australian passport be revoked.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer, has been a stolid supporter of Wikileaks and Assange, but as a frequent TV guest on American news programs he’s complained, “From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks — the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy — have been … America’s intrepid Watchdog journalists. … It just never seems to dawn on them — even when you explain it — that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be … what they do.” (Emphasis mine.)

And it’s not just that bizarre point of view that’s a problem. Many of America’s “finest” news organizations (and some global ones) have been guilty of laziness and/or carelessness in their reporting on Wikileaks. Normally, I love NPR, but the latest column from its ombudsman has me losing some faith. Alicia Shepard tells of how NPR was guilty over a prolonged period of misstating the number of diplomatic cables that Wikileaks had published — with multiple reporters and anchors stating that it had published or released “thousands” when the real number is 1,947 or less than 1% of what Wikileaks has in its possession. It took a dogged complainer weeks to get NPR to issue a correction.

Worse yet, Louisiana State graduate student Matthew Schafer has discovered the same mistake being made by the Associated Press, New York Times, Politico, UPI, The Economist, Mashable, BBC, Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor, among others. All of those news organizations have implied in their reporting that all 250,000-plus State Department documents obtained by WikiLeaks had been published or released.

What could explain this odd behavior by much of the mainstream news media? Certainly there are multiple forces at play, but I have to think that one of them is the overall decline in the quality of journalism in the last couple of years — a result of a horrible economic climate on top of the digital transition for news companies which has resulted in the loss of so many editorial jobs.

Could it be that those remaining in jobs with mainstream “big-media” companies tread lightly and seem more in tune with government and corporate interests than the “new whistleblowers” because they want to keep those jobs?

Whatever the reason, it’s pathetic.

Perhaps the hope for American news media in 2011 will be the newish wave of non-profit investigative reporting entities that don’t need to behave in such an obsequious manner to those in power.

Author: Steve Outing Steve Outing is a Boulder, Colorado-based media futurist, digital-news innovator, consultant, journalist, and educator. ... Need assistance with media-company future strategy? Get in touch with Steve!

7 Responses to "How could journalists disagree with Assange?"

  1. Anna Tarkov
    Anna Tarkov 6 years ago .Reply

    “Could it be that those remaining in jobs with mainstream “big-media” companies tread lightly and seem more in tune with government and corporate interests than the “new whistleblowers” because they want to keep those jobs?”

    YES. The answer is yes. I wrote about this not too long ago: http://www.annatarkov.com/the-media-omerta

  2. Steve Hopkins
    Steve Hopkins 6 years ago .Reply

    My new hero Julian Assange is the person of the year, of the decade, and maybe of the century, depending on how things turn out. He, and his so-far wildly successful project to shed light on nation-scale subterfuge, lawlessness, moral turpitude and obliviousness to reason and justice, may yet jumpstart America’s — and by extension, humanity’s — march back from the abyss, although I doubt he and his few supporters will be able to stem the tide of bullshit being fomented by the information police to drown them.
    Sadly, my prediction is that the upshot of all this will be the loss of the Internet as a tool for global transparency, and that a New World Internet Order will be foisted on us to keep us from being anything but good little consumers.

  3. Abe
    Abe 6 years ago .Reply

    Sorry, Steve, but WikiLeaks has released all the documents, to the newspapers.

    The LSU student (and you?) are pushing a political, pro-WikiLeaks point of view. Most of the examples cited by the student are not incorrect at all. They say, entirely correctly, that WikiLeaks has released more than 200,000 cables.

  4. Steve Outing
    Steve Outing 6 years ago .Reply

    Abe: It depends on how you define “released,” I suppose. Wikileaks has *published* on its own site fewer than 2,000, at last report. It has *shared* the full 200K+ cables with several credible news organizations, but none of those have yet released everything — and they are using their editorial judgment about what to publish. Wikileaks also has shared the full cables with many other individuals and servers, but without the key to decrypt them.

    I would define “released” as available for the public to view, not a tiny number of partner news organizations. Sounds like you have a different definition.

    “Pro-Wikileaks point of view”: guilty, and proud of it. I can only hope that American news outlets begin to show such guts in revealing deception and corruption by those in power.

  5. Jay Rosen
    Jay Rosen 6 years ago .Reply

    You forgot to add that Liberation in France opened a Wikileaks mirror site.

  6. Bill Purkins
    Bill Purkins 6 years ago .Reply

    My people tell me to shut up and or at least call myself “NEW MEDIA,” and ditch my affection for the word Gonzo, but I tell them, WHERE’S YOUR PRESS RELEASE? Mine’s on page one of Google, BING and Yahoo. And agree with me or hate my guts, I force you to laugh at the hypocritical asinine snake crap jive being shoved down out throats by “Don’t Shoot Me I’m Just the Messenger” breed of Minor Deity Wannabees like Mr. HOW THE HELL DO YOU COMMIT A SEX OFFENSE IN SWeDEN ASSANGE.. As a journalist who admits that there IS no such thing as true objectivity in this world, I justify my opinions with the caution that I am only right about 51% of the time, something none of you other pansy farts are willing to admit of yourselves.

    I also draw the line at not publishing something that might get another human being friggin’ KILLED, even though it could make me a fortune and or catalyze 15 minutes or more of fame on this attention span of a fruitfly gestation period planet that now has a half life of news stories that has even ditched the concept of IF IT BLEEDS it leads for HOW HOT IS THE NEWS BUNNY delivering it and how many buttons are undone on her blouse rating scale that rules Cable TV these days. Journalism my ass. Googling something and then checking the spelling on Yahoo or BING does not count as verifying a source, honeypie, and the male anchors and opinionists are even worse as their only standard of measuring success is how good their impression of Chris Matthews with Tourette’s Syndrome is when they knee their guests with opposite opinions squarely in the crotch before they can finish a sentence, and it ain’t a copyrighted trade secret of either side.

    This started when newspapers stopped giving a rat’s tailpipe at 5:01 pm on Friday afternoon. Let’s all just hope World War III starts on a weekend. We might get to miss it entirely. Be way more fun to watch the Reality TV shows with people’s faces and flesh falling off until the cockroaches take over. My only hope is that if it happens that dogs mutate and grow thumbs and then we’ll be on the other end of the leash and maybe this planet might turn around after it chills out a few hundred million years.

    Bottom line? Assange is possibly a war criminal and if the US can nail his butt we have every right to. Some people think he’s the next Ghandi. Where is his willingness to spill the beans though on his opinions about our desire to know the truth regarding what size color or flavor of condoms he allegedly refuses to wear when allegedly refusing to comply with some Swedish chick’s request to apply a little censorship to his Mr. Happy? Or does freedom of the press extend to the freedom to not only stick hos nose anywhere he wants but also his penis?

    Hugs and fishes,
    Bill Purkins, http://OneCent.US, http://FreePressAndMedia.com, http://GITMO.US.

  7. […] as the last one. Fortunately, plenty of journalists get the value of WikiLeaks; unfortunately, many don’t, which has puzzled me. (The same split has occurred among transparency […]

Leave your comment