tip off

Walkley Awards decide Julian Assange is a journalist

The awarding of WikiLeaks with the prize for contribution to journalism in last night’s Walkey awards again raises the questions of what is a journalist and what is journalism?

That’s not surprising. Citizen journalism is with us, and so too is the global publication of pictures, news and information by people who would never think to call themselves journalists, but who find themselves caught up in events that people want to know about.

Locally, we have a media inquiry that is canvassing the issue of whether membership of the Australian Press Council should be a criteria for deciding who gets the special legal protections and access rights that are given to those organisations that claim to do journalism. Would WikiLeaks join the Australia Press Council? It is an interesting question to ponder.

The question of whether Julian Assange is a journalist or not has come up before. This is not the first award for journalism he has won — he got the Martha Gelhorn prize earlier this year.

Some of the newspapers who worked with Assange, then fell out with him, have claimed they treated him as “just another source”. Baloney. This source had the biggest and best leak in history.

Unlike the purveyor of the Pentagon Papers or other leakers of time past, he did not need mainstream media to get the information out there. He collaborated with mainstream media because it suited him, not because it was his only option.

On the other hand the US State Department has pronounced that Assange is not a journalist, in part because he is a “political actor”.

That is clearly a risible reason for saying he doesn’t qualify. If we disqualified people on the basis of being political actors, we would have to rule out all those journos who have worked as political staffers before returning to journalism. We would also have to rule out all those who engage in polemic as part of what they do — journalists from Greg Sheridan to John Pilger.

There has been a debate floating around in recent months about whether Andrew Bolt is a journalist. On one measure, he surely is. He trained in a newsroom, worked for mainstream media, and had a fairly conventional career path.

Yet now he writes mainly commentary. The recent court case in which he was involved found that, on at least two occasions, that commentary was built on a faulty factual base, and indeed that the facts were skewed to suit his polemical point. So is he no longer a journalist. Or were those columns merely instances of bad journalism?

We could go round and round like this. And that’s without even starting on the issue of whether or not journalism is a profession, analagous to law or medicine, or a craft — an issue I don’t intend to canvass here.

We shouldn’t be surprised that the question of “what is a journalist?” is potent in our own time. Journalism as a paid occupation was the byproduct of the invention of the printing press, and all that followed. Given that we are now living through at least the equivalent in technological innovation, we shouldn’t be surprised that the future of the occupation is in question, and that its boundaries are blurring.

As we live through this transition, I think it is more helpful to ask not “what is a journalist?”, but “what is journalism?”. That is, to see journalism as a practice that many people might engage in, not all of them identifying as journalists. Defining journalism as more of a practice than an occupation also allows us to say that not everything done by people who call themselves journalists qualifies as journalism.

So what is the core of the practice? First, it is finding things out and telling people about them. Assange qualifies, and then some.

Second, it is commitment to factual accuracy and verification. Again, Assange qualifies. Nobody has claimed that the material he released was not what he said it was.

Third, it is, at least sometimes, editing, curating and verifying. Assange has done some of this, and organised for more to be done through his relationship with media partners. Barbara Gunnell, the UK journalist, wrote in Griffith Review how WikiLeaks provided an edited movie — “Collateral Murder” — as part of its initial Iraqi related release and the raw footage, so viewers could assess the integrity of the editing.

Lastly, and certainly implied if ethical standards are to be taken as part of the accreditation of journalism, there is an ideology, or a vibe — a belief in transparency, and in the democratic effect of sharing information.

WikiLeaks qualifies. While one might argue about the extent to which it adequately fulfills its responsibilities (just as one might with any mainstream media organisation), 
WikiLeaks has a clearly described agenda of working for good governance. The mission outlined on its website is that leaking calls governments and corporations to account, and that “public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions … Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance.”

Most serious journalists would have no trouble signing up to that mission, even if they want to argue that WikiLeaks has failed in areas of ethical responsibility (and which media outlet has not?).The main thing, surely, is that in the inevitably changing practice of journalism, WikiLeaks has been an enormous and highly significant leapfrog into the present and future. To quote Gunnell’s Griffith Review piece:

Julian Assange has changed journalism. To debate the good or otherwise of organisations such as WikiLeaks, or to ask whether its staff are data thieves or real journalists, is to miss the point. Secure, anonymous leaking is now part of the media landscape, as is disseminating large amounts of leaked information through the mainstream media … even if the organisation were to close tomorrow, such data dumps for whistleblowers and secret sources are here to stay. As fast as governments encrypt and hide, whistleblowers and hackers will decode and seek places to publish. Phillip Knightley, a highly regarded journalist, has argued that the WikiLeaks saga represents ‘a sea-change in the way we are ruled and the information we are entitled to expect’.”

Undigested data dumps are not destined to be the main way in which journalism is done. Every new media experiment we know of has had, or found it necessary to reinvent, roles such as that of editor or verifier.

Last night’s award will be controversial for all the reasons Assange is controversial — the r-pe allegations, the issue of whether and how lives were put at risk, his personality, and so on and so forth. It is also notable that the award went not to the man, but to the organsiation, which raises a raft of other issues about the extent to which the two are divisible.

But then, the Walkleys have never been about whether or not someone is a nice person. Lots of shits have won Walkleys.

But greatest contribution to journalism? Whatever your concerns about how WikiLeaks understands and performs it responsibilities, the giving of this award to WikiLeaks is really inarguable.

WikiLeaks’ work has led to rafts of world-changing stories in the world’s best newspapers. It was arguably a spur for the Arab spring. It has changed the way journalism is practised forever.

No other piece of Australian journalism can claim more.

36
  • 1
    David Coady
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    In a free society you don’t need to pass any special tests or be a member of any professional association to be a journalist (it’s not like being a doctor or a lawyer), you just have to provide the public with information it has a right to know. Of course Julian Assange is a journalist. Unfortunately many of the “journalists” working in the conventional media are not.

  • 2
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Agree with David. Let’s talk about Australian journalist so brainwashed and ignorant over the last decade they still believe Ruddock’s nonsense that giving refugees a ride is “people smuggling” when international law says it is not and we signed up to the international law to say it is not.

    They are morons who still think it is our business who people pay to get them out of other countries, our business to police the borders of the world and still refuse to read the actual laws and transcripts of court cases.

    The morons now seem to have realised we are wasting enormous sums of money to jail poor Indonesian fishermen while the so called “organisers” are left untouched, we have been doing that for the past 12 years.

    Before that there were no such things as people smuggling rings or smugglers.

    The reality is they don’t want the refugees.

    But the moron media in this country tell me the law is “my opinion.”

    This was a great award - contrast where Dillard was, inducting the no talent budgie into the music hall of fame.

  • 3
    G Andrew
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    I’ve had to read this a few times to determine whether you are praising or deriding the award given to Wikileaks last night. Perhaps a bit of both?
    Ultimately I feel that Assange is not a journalist, but Wikileaks provides a resource, and one of high quality at that, for said same journalists to draw upon, therefore the award is perfectly in keeping.

    @Marilyn - the Walkley’s was wonderful viewing, and you are totally correct, it is embarrassing how our PM seems to want to put her face everywhere and be this pop culture figure.

  • 4
    Neil Walker
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    A journalist is someone who asks questions. They either interview someone via telephone, in person or even via email and then report on a subject.

    Writing opinion pieces is not journalism although journalists can occasionally write opinion pieces.

    Unfortunately far too many people working in modern media regard themselves as journalists despite never contacting anyone for comment on anything ever before writing up their opinion and claiming it is journalism.

    The Australia Press Council - like its UK equivalent - has been an abject failure. It is directly financed by the media outlets it purports to regulate (who sometimes threaten to withdraw funding if a ruling is not to their liking) and has done nothing to curb the worst excesses of some so-called journalists.

    The question is not should citizen journalists be allowed to join the Press Council but why would citizen journalists want to join the Press Council?

  • 5
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    SHEPHERDMARILYN is correct. No qualifications are need to be a journalist and yet the major organizations employing them in Australia, namely Fairfax & News Ltd want total freedom to act as they see fit and the ability to destroy reputations without any person-unless they are well heeled enough to access libel courts-being able to repair the damage done.

    Fairfax has descended almost to News Ltd level and that’s exampled by their boss fronting a media inquiry and demanding ‘self regulation’, an option not available to any other profit making entity.

    Assange happened despite the world’s media. And the Walkey’s are an in house joke.

  • 6
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Political actor”? Do they mean like Murdoch - “Citizen No.1”?

    (Surely a journalist is one who “contributes to a journal”?)

  • 7
    Neil Walker
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Also, Julian Assange is not a journalist. It’s arguable that Wikileaks is even a source.

    Wikileaks is a conduit — albeit a fascinating and high-profile conduit — for sources.

    Unlike most sources Wikileaks had no direct dealings with those it revealed information about. (Unlike, for example, a current or ex-employee of a government or private company that leaked to the media)

  • 8
    zut alors
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    I was pleased Gillard was at the Aria awards instead. Maintain the Walkleys as a politician-free event.

  • 9
    NAJ Taylor
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Whilst there’s some truth here: “Unlike the purveyor of the Pentagon Papers or other leakers of time past, he did not need mainstream media to get the information out there. He collaborated with mainstream media because it suited him, not because it was his only option.”, the very point is that Assange did need the mainstream media - he has many times spoken of his disappointment and amazement that his first few leaks had little to no impact. “The people” often need to be communicated to, not given information - apathy scuppers scandals and corruptions too.

    BTW, Assange has long referred to himself not as a spokesman, but a journalist in official documentation.

  • 10
    Paul Quill
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    At this point it does seem fair to point out that News of the World hackers are journalists. So is your typical PR. All of them can join the union, which decides who can be a journalists. Even people who get paid by universities to talk about other people’s “journalism” are, apparently, journalists.
    As the currency continues to devalue in line with the long lost drachma, “journalism” as it was once identified by the audience - a trusted source of what’s going on - is now anything at all. Or nothing. Or something you don’t trust in the least, like a blogger. (Sorry, a “citizen journalist”.)
    The Walkey booze up is resembling these days the ballroom of the Titanic.

  • 11
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    His speech was spot on.

  • 12
    Scott
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    This is up there with Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize…I think it says more about the committee awarding the prize than the recipient.

  • 13
    paddy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    It was a truly delicious irony, that as the Walkleys were making an award requiring the vaguest hint of courage…..
    The PM was snuggling (as opposed to smuggling) Australia’s most famous budgie.
    Bravo. :D

  • 14
    Colleen Murrell
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    I think ”the issue of whether and how lives were put at risk” is supremely important and is not simply a matter of passing interest. I’m with papers like the Guardian who took the time and effort to redact names and not place lives at risk. Wikileaks has been an enormously important resource but its aggregators are not journalists.

  • 15
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    But how many lives were actually “put at risk” - compared to that asserted in the rhetoric, for a negative image, by their detractors?
    Some of whom thought nothing of exposing Valerie Plame to that sort of jeopardy, for the sake of revenge on her husband (Joe Wilson) for speaking out against the propaganda about “WMD’s” being a reason to attack Iraq.

  • 16
    Meski
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    The US State Department would prefer that they did not have to treat Julian as a journalist, they have too many sections in their constitution dealing with the press to be comfortable with that.

    As for Julian, does he feel comfortable being a journalist alongside the abject failures of journalism that populate News Ltd? Andrew Bolt, for instance.

    To those who issue Walkley awards, I salute you. You’ve lit a rocket under many who needed one lit.

  • 17
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    I fail to see where Julian Assange has met the Journalist Code of Ethics in any of the material he has presented to the public. It may be interesting, and perhaps enlightening to some, but journalism it ain’t.
    Do not confuse journalism with a reporter’s mission, as most in the profession do!

  • 18
    pertina1
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    No doubt Julian Assange a gifted (self) publicist but journalist; give me a break!

    A populist decision which dimishes the Walkeleys.

  • 19
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    PERTINA 1: spoken like a real anonymous poster.

    Are you a journo?

    Do you even know any?

    Do you the difference between Falstaff & a Chief-of-staff?

    MIKE FLANAGAN: I can’t even follow what you’re proposing !!!! You are obviously involved in the Oz’s Letter’s page in some shape or form.

  • 20
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Oh my lordy the right wing ranters do hate truth don’t they.

  • 21
    Steven Warren
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Colleen Murrell, you do realise that the release of all those names in un-redacted form was done by a Guardian journalist which is why the Guardian shut up - after about two days of stories slamming Assange for releasing the names - when the truth came out and it was found the Guardian was responsible.

    So based on that one proviso you put forward for determining whether or not someone is a journalist, the group you put forward as an example of being journalists don’t actually meet the criteria based on the situation you actually used to disqualify Wikileaks.

    The Guardian’s change of face re. Assange is all a bit shallow really. In a Vanity Fair article on the matter, the Guardian journalists responsible for the negative stories about Assange actually tried explaining that they had initially thought he was offering them an exclusive (and the biggest exclusive ever) and when he brought in other media organisations they decided to get revenge.

  • 22
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    K Herbert
    The difference between a proposition and an observation is considerable.
    You should take the time to read some of my observations of my perception of the Murdoch dynasty to realise that I will not condescend to give the Australian the credit of a internet hit under my name. The only time I would lower my intelligence to read one of his rags is in the library, and that is because it is free.

  • 23
    kennethrobinson2
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    The comment that Wiki put lives at risk, pales with the number of lives lost, due to the actions of those that want him hung/drawn/and/quartered.
    I wonder if the current wave of protests will change anything?.

  • 24
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I do find it hilarious that ranters claim wikileaks put lives at risk but they never tell us who has been killed but hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered by the governments exposed by wikileaks.

  • 25
    AR
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Interesting to see how many twigs of the dead tree press stridewntly maintain that theirs is a sacred cohort, not open to mere ‘citizens’ however well informed or erudite. Leave the dead to bury the dying say I

  • 26
    Harpsy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    I think the mood in the room last night was one of disbelief, then boredom when Assange ranted from the big screen for what seemed like an eternity. I felt like he was a cult leader trying to brainwash me. I was disappointed he won, what can I say, I believe there were other journos in the room who were more deserving of such a major award - and those journalists aren’t facing serious charges.

  • 27
    Harpsy
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    @zut alors - politician free - you’ve got to be joking - Bligh was just about the first person on stage!

  • 28
    Bob the builder
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    @ Harpsy
    “I believe there were other journos in the room who were more deserving of such a major award - and those journalists aren’t facing serious charges.”
    That should say enough. How many first-world ‘journalists’ are willing to get off the gravy train, let alone risk serious charges?
    And as far as boredom, if the meedja isn’t bored by most of what they produce, yet is bored by Assange…. ?

  • 29
    Colleen Murrell
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    Steven Warren - In an interview a few months back on the ABC the following accusation and rebuttal was recorded.

    Leigh Sales: In a book about you that’s recently been released by two Guardian journalists, David Leigh and Luke Harding, they say they had an exchange with you last July, they wanted you to redact the names of informants mentioned in the Iraq War logs and they claim that you said, “Well, they’re informants, so if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them, they deserve it.” Did you say that?

    JULIAN ASSANGE: No, and we are suing them for libel and we have witnesses to show that is a libellous claim, and is an ongoing dispute, so there’s a lot of vitriol in the top end of the news business and a lot of back-stabbing, and unfortunately we happen to be on the receiving end of it from this individual.

    Should such a libel case every eventuate, then I guess it will be tested in open court. In the meantime, I know whom I believe. You are free to choose to also make your own choice.

  • 30
    Steven Warren
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Colleen, It’s well documented that the Guardian was pissed off at Wikileaks for bringing Der Speigel in to the publishers (they were fine with the NY Times because they were already planning on sharing them the leaks anyway).

    They even repeatedly say this in their own articles trying to paint Assange in a negative light.

    Their entire spat with him is they thought they were going to be able to sell the leaks to other media organisations and because he gave the information to other media sources they lost a great deal of the money they thought they were going to get from the Wikileaks cash cow.

    Since they couldn’t sell exclusive rights to the leaks they instead decided to make money by selling the story about their dealings with Assange instead.

    What’s most amusing about this is that whenever you read one of the Guardians stories on him they say quite blatantly that their only concern is selling a large number of papers and that this is their entire motivation of treating him the way they do they actually see that this is a positive image to be pushing about their paper.

  • 31
    Colleen Murrell
    Posted Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Steven - The Guardian is losing money hand over fist. Luckily the paper is underwritten by The Scott Trust Foundation. Perhaps if the main aim of its journalists was simply selling more newspapers, The Guardian wouldn’t be in its current parlous financial state.

  • 32
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Better Assange than the grubs at Newsltd. like Paul McMullan.

  • 33
    Archer
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    @Colleen Murrell

    Poor old Assange, it’s everybody elses fault. Send him to the U.S. and let the court sort him out. If he’s pure as the driven snow as you say he is, he has nothing to worry about. The man is basically a handler of stolen goods, then he was stupid enough to release the data onto the internet. The man has had his 15 minutes.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/assange-leaks-251287-raw-us-cables-sparking-global-outcry-2348389.html

    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Monday, 28 November 2011 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I do find it hilarious that ranters claim wikileaks put lives at risk but they never tell us who has been killed but hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered by the governments exposed by wikileaks.”

    Possibility of putting lives at risk? See links. If i release your passport details onto the web there’s a good chance your id will be hacked.

    Hundreds of thousands? Provide link please

    List the dead by name? Well I can’t because as there are hundreds of thousands, but I can tell you they’re probably Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani a few Saudi probably some Iranians and Sudanese. It’s a war.
    Damn that war Marylin. And if you don’t know who’s killing who by now, where have you been for the past ten years?

  • 34
    Meski
    Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    @Archer: You need to re-examine the term steal. It means to deprive the original owner of the goods. Now, the original owner still has the goods, WikiLeaks just has a copy of them. Along with anyone else who down-loaded them from there. So, not stolen goods. Want to try again? Or do you want to allege that if I take a photo of your car that I’ve ‘stolen’ it? Go peddle that line with the MPAA, RIAA and their cronies.

    If the cables were copyrighted, then he may have broken copyright laws. But that’s not the charge.

    List some of them then, that have conclusively been linked. Not a list of those killed in the war, a partial list that were killed *because* of that leak. Not probably, definitely.

  • 35
    Archer
    Posted Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    @Meski

    You need to re-examine the term steal. It means to deprive the original owner of the goods. Now, the original owner still has the goods, WikiLeaks just has a copy of them.”

    Oh, you make it sound like he photo copied the diary of a soldier. Take it from me, I have had to go through governmental security clearance checks for military engineering jobs. They take their privacy and security very seriously. A basic Australian defence clearance takes 6 weeks to process. I can just imagine what Brad Manning went through. So I would think copyright is on a long list of laws broken by Assange and not the one he should be most worried about.

    On a simpler note. As a designer, every time I join a large corporation I am asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. It also stipulates I can’t pass on information to others, ala’ Manning to Assange, because the next party would also be seen as an accomplice in taking proprietary or intellectual data. I believe Manning would be in the same boat.

    Now, about the names which were embedded in the data. It’s a question of morality and irresponsibility on his behalf. He, who stands for truth and exposing the abominations of the U.S. and its allies, doesn’t want to take responsibility for any harm he may cause. Note, I say and have always said may.

    What has he actually proven so far? Donut, zilch, zero, niente. Everything he takes credit for we already knew. We knew the Saudis wanted the U.S. to bomb Iran, we knew the Israelis wanted help from The U.S. to fry Irans nuclear sites, we knew Egypt aren’t happy about Iran and he sure as hell didn’t start the Arab spring. Those who do think he started the Arab spring spend to much time fingering their smart phones and not enough time in reality, noticing a beautiful sunny day. So, diplomats call each other names, big deal. Embarrassing, yes. Revelation, no.

  • 36
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Saturday, 17 December 2011 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    I am glad Julian won his appeal.

    On the trial of Bradley Murdoch, I have seen the footage of Obama saying ’ he did the wrong thing’.

    This is grounds for immediate acquital. The Command In Cheif, whom ALL the judges, prosecutors and jury for work in this military trial are all tarnished.

    Its open and shut case on his acquital.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...