Do you consider what Wikileaks does to be journalism?

I think it shares many similarities to investigative journalism.

journalism is edited/filtered. Wikileaks is raw.

I see I'm among the 50% who said yes.

@zichi and u_s_reamer

Wrong thread for Trump bashing, this is just a yes or no question on Wikileaks.

In the current day when journalism is weak and cowardly, bought by sponsors and whatnot, it's nice to have wikileaks who say it like it is, even if it's unfiltered material.

The journalism world brought it upon themselves when they lost their integrity.

A shame that half the people have been taught to think that journalists are like doctors, who need to be licensed. It's the exact opposite of what the 4th estate is meant to be. When the US constitution was written, the press meant pamphleteers like Thomas Paine, who were seen as borderline criminals by most. They never imagined that journalists would someday be hobnobbing with the very people they should be watching over. With out a doubt, they wouldn't question Assange's credentials as a member of the press.

In fact, Assange just received a major EU journalism award. It's mostly the Americans, who have gone from a freedom loving people to a vindictive people who are happy to have a government that lies to them daily and commits all kinds of unaccounted crimes around the world.

If journalists require state recognition as journalists, then the free press is essentially dead.

it's nice to have wikileaks who say it like it is, even if it's unfiltered material.

Except when that unfiltered material includes things such as lists of names of Afghan nationals working with US forces, opening their families up for reprisals from ISIS. I would hazard a guess those Afghans would disagree that having Wikileaks 'say it like it is' was a good thing.

who are happy to have a government that lies to them daily and commits all kinds of unaccounted crimes around the world.

Or we just don't like that Assange can't tell the difference between exposing crimes and exposing sensitive information that endangers lives. He doesn't know the definition of 'journalism'.

So when journalist at the New York Times or other reputable agencies release full unedited documents with their commentary and their side of the story, they are no longer journalist or new agencies? Because they have done that on several occasions.

Journalism is to be considered as the fourth branch of the "seperation of powers"-concept. Journalists are to surveil that the state is abiding by the laws enacted by the legislative house. Wikileaks have revealed lots of state-secrets, in order to protect the free human mind. Ergo, wikileaks should be considered journalism, but a very unorthodox one.

Journalists would never

A) Put never even potentially pit people in danger of physical harm through their reporting,

B) Deal in stolen property.

Wikileaks is guilty of both, so they are therefore not journalists.

Zichi, if it can be proved that no-one was hurt as a result of Wikileaks, I would be both surprised and much happier. (You could argue of course that all or most of those who felt threatened started a refugee exodus.) Records of extrajudicial killings and their reasons are not generally kept.

What can be said is that Assange made no attempt to protect anyone.

Snowden however, I feel much more sympathy for. There’s a concerned journalist hard at work.

We need someone to expose the lies of our government, we need someone to expose the murderous tactics of Washington.

We need someone to expose the lies of our government, we need someone to expose the murderous tactics of Washington.

If that someone is getting innocent people killed in the process, he is not the someone that we need.

Stealing for your benefit is stealing.

He's stealing for his own ego, so... stealing.

WWII showed to all where it could lead. Lezrn your history if you want to blame some.

Please do not compare the Nazi's keeping track of the Jews to a list of assets cooperating with the US government. That's tasteless and disgusting. The lists that Assange released would never have put anyone in danger had he simply shown some restraint and not released them. There was absolutely no reason to release everything that was stolen. He did it to show that he could, to stroke his own ego.

You are weakly trying to justify why it's ok for your hero Assange to put people's lives in danger with his cowardly antics. It is not ok, no matter how you try to spin it. Assange is a criminal and should be held liable for anyone who was hurt because of what he did. period.

Exposing crimes of governments and corporations is necessary. Said governments may say it is "illegal" and "harmful" but if it exposes the treachery and lies governments perpetuate throughout the world, it is the right thing. Bless people like Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Snowden, and others who risk their livelihoods to expose the sludge behind the supposed "benevolent" governments of the world.

Take away the bit where he enabled the Taliban to go around eliminating Afghan government staff and their families for ‘cooperating’ with foreign troops, and I would be more inclined to allow him valid journalistic license.

He seemed to show no regard for the suffering that unfiltered raw data would cause to ordinary people, as cruel an attitude as anything that he might be exposing.

Said governments may say it is "illegal" and "harmful" 

NO. What Assange did is illegal and harmful. How hard is it to understand that information that Assange released led to people being killed?? That does not balance out ‘exposing’ anything.

I don’t approve of what Edward Snowden did either, but at least he was selective in what he released out of the materials that he stole. His intent was to expose corruption and he did so.

Assange’s intent was to create chaos and he got exactly that, and he managed to burn a ton of innocent people in the process. He’s a dirtbag and calling him any kind of ‘journalist’ gives legitimate journalists a black eye, and anyone who finds his actions acceptable condones murder.

You don't keep a list of assets cooperating...if it can be stolen by a third party.

CIA agent #1: “Hey Bob, we have actionable intelligence about a suicide bombing in Kandahar. I need a name of a local that might be able to help us.”

CIA agent #2: “Well, Dave, I’d love to help, but we didn’t write any of their names down and they’re so hard to remember. Sorry.”

Do you see how stupid that sounds??

"Don't shoot the messenger". It seems some can't understand the meaning.

Haha! My god, ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’. Assange wasn’t the messenger, he was a guy with a fat stack of stolen documents and instead of releasing the ones that would only expose government wrongdoings, he decided to just put everything out there, regardless of who it might hurt.

There was no reason to release a list of names of people working for the government. Please, give me a reason why he should have released it. You can’t because there is none. It doesn’t matter whether we should make a list of names or not (see my previous point on how ridiculous that notion is), there was absolutely no benefit to anyone to release it. Assange didn’t give a damn

And as far as whether it was proven if anyone was killed, that’s kind of irrelevant. It’s a fact that the information was released and Assange isn’t a fortune teller. If he was, he might have been nicer to the guys at the embassy...

What happened to those links showing the people who were killed because of Wikileaks?

Saying it's ok that Assange released that information is ok because nobody ended up being killed is like saying driving drunk is ok as long as you get home without running over any pedestrians. Assange had no way of knowing what the outcome would be but he did it anyway.

Wikileaks is more journalist than Foc News - which the Mueller repot exposes as being the propaganda arm of the Trump administration. They let Trump have editorial control over his interviews with them, and they remove parts of the interview at his request. At least Wikileaks attempts to be journalistic.

Just another player - even if hey never wanted to be, they are now.

Better without Assange, so may become less contradictory in the future.

When Hucksterbee Sanders tells us that her narcissistic boss's "love" for Wikileaks was just a joke, for once I believe her. All Trump's "loves" are a joke with the possible exception of gold, golf and his little orange ego.

Journalists would never

A) Put never even potentially pit people in danger of physical harm through their reporting,

Apart from being a dictator's mouthpiece, where said dictator demonises sections of society and uses dangerous rhetoric to whip up hatred against those sections.

@extanker

Please do not compare the Nazi's keeping track of the Jews to a list of assets cooperating with the US government. That's tasteless and disgusting. The lists that Assange released would never have put anyone in danger had he simply shown some restraint and not released them. There was absolutely no reason to release everything that was stolen. He did it to show that he could, to stroke his own ego.

Again, learn your history. I am not the one creating the laws for control of personal data (check CNIL in France dealing with GDPR). Even facebook is asking for some control...

And yes, all comes from that part of history, sorry to say. My grandparents could tell you about.

You don't keep a list of assets cooperating...if it can be stolen by a third party.

"Don't shoot the messenger". It seems some can't understand the meaning.

@Steven

Don't shoot the messenger

A) Put never even potentially pit people in danger of physical harm through their reporting,

WIkileaks is not about setti g censorship of any kind. You don't create a list that can be stolen and get people hurt if so. That is lame to blame the person who just reports

B) Deal in stolen property.

I call wikileaks any stolen information that show the world that some have lied for their own interests. Lying is not acceptable outside to protect people. Tell me when it was done for that purpose. Hardly ever never.

Stealing for your benefit is stealing. Stealing to show prople are wrong is justice.

Wikileaks is guilty of both, so they are therefore not journalists.

You judge that easily ?

It is forbidden to establish a list with names without people's consent in France.

WWII showed to all where it could lead. Lezrn your history if you want to blame some.

At the most, they could be considered irresponsible journalism. Real journalists temper their reporting with responsibility. Wikileaks has placed no such restriction on their 'reporting', releasing confidential information that has put real human lives at risk.

Wikileaks is just TMZ with stolen government files instead of pictures of celebrities having affairs. They are just doing it for the 'clicks'.