Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


People & Ideas

Nov 28, 2011

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 raises once again the questions of what is a journalist and what is journalism?

User login status :


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.

Margaret Simons —

Margaret Simons

Journalist, author and director of the Centre for Advanced Journalism

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Margaret Simons


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

36 thoughts on “Walkley Awards decide Julian Assange is a journalist

  1. Archer

    @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.



    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?

  2. 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.”

    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.

Leave a comment