Is there an example of someone with a leak who actually couldn't get a hearing on the information because the State wouldn't let newspapers report it?
In my opinion, that isn't the relevant point.
There are examples of newspapers holding back on information, or only delivering some of the information
THAT is the point.
― My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Friday, 6 August 2010 01:53 (thirteen years ago) link
But WikiLeaks is doing the same thing -- so I don't see how this is such a huge shift. As long as there's a human being involved willing to take responsibility for the information that is reported there will be things held back.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 01:58 (thirteen years ago) link
I think the difference is that traditional newsgathering and news-delivering sources, left and right, hold things back because at the end of the day they're susceptible to economic pressures and political pressures. Those reasons shouldn't enter into any editorial decision. WL will have us believe they're not susceptible to business or political influence, which may or may not be true, but it's a nice idea. There are legit reasons not to release everything they get, like their leaks might put innocents in harm's way. They're already running into that thornbush.
― My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:05 (thirteen years ago) link
WL will have us believe they're not susceptible to business or political influence, which may or may not be true, but it's a nice idea.
That's the claim I'm really skeptical of. It could be that WL will be subject to new or different economic or political influences than the mainstream US media, but I don't see how they emancipate themselves from economics + politics.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:08 (thirteen years ago) link
sometimes it takes a few minutes to see the wires in a puppet show
― My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:11 (thirteen years ago) link
mordy it's rather simple: the government shouldn't get to decide what journalism is. you don't have to include assange and wikileaks in your club if you don't want to, but non-traditional media should still be entitled to the same free press protections that traditional media are afforded, which means the right to protect their sources upon subpoena
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:17 (thirteen years ago) link
I don't think you've thought that position through, k3v. Can anyone just declare themselves a journalist and then be free of being subpoenaed?
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:26 (thirteen years ago) link
It depends. What do they do that they are defining as journalism? If it's delivering flowers, no. If it involves the dissemination of information via print, television, radio, or other electronic means, maybe.
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:29 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm willing to be swayed on this, but I think the reason that we distinguish between journalism and someone who simply disseminates information is because of messy stuff like the public interest. Lots of people could disseminate information via print, television, radio, etc that we might like to subpoena. Arguably under that definition Bradley Manning is a journalist. Maybe you happen to like what Bradley Manning leaked but it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to think of someone disseminating information to print, television, radio etc that you may want to be subpoena'd. Journalism is, for better or worse (imo for better) an actual institution. Just like doctors have special legal protections that not everyone gets (even if you consider yourself like a doctor but aren't actually), so too should journalists.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:33 (thirteen years ago) link
Just like doctors have special legal protections that not everyone gets (even if you consider yourself like a doctor but aren't actually), so too should journalists.
Doctors get this through licensure via accredited institutions - there are all manner of legal requirements in place about it, and this is because they provide direct care (and consequently can do direct harm). The notion of making journalism a licensed & accredited profession, while admittedly interesting, is a nonstarter, because any harm occurring because of a reported story is the sole responsibility of the person doing the harm. Seems like black letter law to me: I am not responsible for the actions of others.
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 02:37 (thirteen years ago) link
(On second thought Manning is a bad example because this would really only protect sources and presumably he doesn't have his own source -- but I think the point still stands. Is a journalist anyone who takes information and then repackages it for the public? I can think of a lot of examples where I'd want such a figure subpoenaed. Hell, I think Assange should be subpoenaed re: the leaks since someone released information that put people's lives at risk.)
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Like here's a disembodied moral question. If I leak information that leads to someone dying, am I culpable in any way for that death? (If I tell a murderer where he can find his victim, presumably I have culpability.) Generally the journalism institution is in place to mediate those risks such that they can minimize those risks. Even still tho, people's lives are put at risk through leaks (see Plame Affair). Now with a journalism institute, you may decide you want to say, "Ok, I understand some people may not be brought to justice but I believe the press is worth protecting here especially since they'll try to minimize damage." But how about with something like WikiLeaks? Should we really give them carte blanche to publish anything and protect their sources who may be acting out of any number of motives that we might want to prosecute?
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:41 (thirteen years ago) link
Which goes to a question we haven't discussed here yet, which is that radical anonymity is actually contra a free press -- it allows all kinds of interests to use that press to whatever ends they want. One thing journalism is supposed to do is mediate those abuses, give anonymity when they feel it deserves it, etc. But Assange is saying, "No, everyone can be anonymous." The philosophy seems to be that if anything can go in, no one can take advantage. But it's just as easy to say that if anything can go in, everyone can take advantage.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:43 (thirteen years ago) link
and this is because they provide direct care (and consequently can do direct harm). The notion of making journalism a licensed & accredited profession, while admittedly interesting, is a nonstarter, because any harm occurring because of a reported story is the sole responsibility of the person doing the harm. Seems like black letter law to me: I am not responsible for the actions of others.
I assume I don't need to point out the fallacy here, right?
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 02:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Like here's a disembodied moral question. If I leak information that leads to someone dying, am I culpable in any way for that death? (If I tell a murderer where he can find his victim, presumably I have culpability.)
you see the HUGE, GAPING difference between these two scenarios, right? (ignoring the fact that you said 'leak' and not 'report',) if someone disseminates information that leads to someone's death, that is a very unfortunate thing, and that person should probably feel shitty about themselves for that. that does not mean he should be held legally accountable; that's the thing about freedom of the press - the government doesn't get to retroactively prosecute someone for exercising his right, even if it indirectly led to someone's death. same way you can't censor books or other speech that the govt thinks may lead to unfortunate public interest consequences. in some warped way it may be safer if rights are taken away, but who wants to live in that kind of society? (i'm not sure what you were going for with the whole moral vs legal binary though - if i say something racist, i should feel like an asshole and deserve to be socially ostracized, but should i be prosecuted for "deliberately injuring another person's dignity", like in south africa? maybe i'm going off on a tangent here)
the second scenario is different - assuming you weren't under duress and told the murderer where the person was, knowing it would lead to murder, you're just an accomplice
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:10 (thirteen years ago) link
if someone disseminates information that leads to someone's death, that is a very unfortunate thing, and that person should probably feel shitty about themselves for that. that does not mean he should be held legally accountable;
This is an ethically really reprehensible position imo. People should be legally accountable for actions that lead to people dying.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:14 (thirteen years ago) link
Ie: Your right to freely disseminate information does not trump someone else's right to life.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:15 (thirteen years ago) link
i mean you also can't assassinate some asshole halfway across the world for advocating the overthrow of the government OH WAIT
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:15 (thirteen years ago) link
I guess you're claiming that you're entitled to reprehensible ethics because the government does things you don't approve of?
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:16 (thirteen years ago) link
― Mordy, Thursday, August 5, 2010 11:15 PM (12 seconds ago)
well that's not my position at all, shocker - the way you say it makes it sound like the information was made available for the expressed purpose of this person dying, or provided directly to the people who carried out this hypothetical murder. what i'm talking about is information or speech being expressed and, independently, bad event x happens.
i mean what if a newspaper (or a book) ran an article that detailed how to commit a murder without leaving any trace, and then someone later committed a murder in exactly this fashion? can the government prosecute the journalist or the author of that book for proferring information that likely led to someone dying?
xp well sort of, actually! i'm legally entitled to whatever speech i like, regardless of how it jibes with mordy's ethics. there's a world of difference between condoning behavior and being opposed to the criminalization of the same behavior
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:30 (thirteen years ago) link
This is really confusing. Is there a case where someone could publish information irresponsibly enough that you'd consider them culpable for someone's death? Say, information that they knew beforehand could lead to a death and then it actually lead to the death? Because you're outlining a case of unintentionally as a way of -- it appears -- eliding the actual issue.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:34 (thirteen years ago) link
Unintentionality - or something like that. Motiveless publishing. But like, let's say Plame's cover had been blown and she'd actually died (which was a serious concern during the Plame Affair), and let's say it turned out that Novak was well aware of this risk when he published it. You really wouldn't feel he's legally culpable?
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:37 (thirteen years ago) link
i'm guessing here the legal distinction between being an accomplice ("plame is here, go kill her") and just being a motiveless reporter, is that everyone (the public) gets the news at the same time? if i furnish you and you alone with a list of ppl in the witness protection program, then it would not be a stretch to say i'm complicit. if i publish one in the newspaper, then theoretically the protecting agency and any would-be killers are operating with the same set of facts.
otoh, what's tricky with say an afghani informant is that it could be entirely possible that they would be completely ignorant of a WL document naming them, whereas a well-connected organization that's pissed off is likely in tune with this stuff
nb i do not know this to be true, i'm trying to think thru it
― pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 03:52 (thirteen years ago) link
mordy it seems worth pointing out that "institution of journalism" youre talking about is just one version of "journalism"--one thats only existed for 60 or 70 years or so and seems primed for some really major changes
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 03:57 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm definitely interested in talking about the history of the Press, tho maybe not in this thread. But I'd make a much stronger historical reading of Press going back to the 1400s in some kind of printed reportorial form (newspapers, really) that carries with it all those years of ethics and governmental/state/power relationships. Like the idea of it acting as a fourth estate goes back to at least the 18th century.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:02 (thirteen years ago) link
Which goes to a question we haven't discussed here yet, which is that radical anonymity is actually contra a free press -- it allows all kinds of interests to use that press to whatever ends they want
ok its just when you say things like this its like... im not sure what the alternative is? isnt this always the way "the press" has existed? as tool used by various interests?
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:06 (thirteen years ago) link
Yes, but reporters are conscious and aware of those various interests. That's supposed to be part of their job, analyzing sources and contextualizing their trust-worthiness, value, balance, etc. Assange has no idea who sends him what. It's totally anonymous to him.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:08 (thirteen years ago) link
see i think thats only really been "the job" of reporters since the 1930s or 40s
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:08 (thirteen years ago) link
not to say its a bad thing
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:09 (thirteen years ago) link
and even when it is "the job" of reporters to be doing all those things its a pretty rare occurrence when they actually do
I don't understand what you mean -- because technically the press has been "unbiased" since the 30s? Reporters have always weighed sources and contextualized their credibility, tho maybe it seemed to hem more to an ideological position? Because I'd just argue that the only thing that has changed is trying to erase ideology, something that really can't be done anyway.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:10 (thirteen years ago) link
(lol, we should just start a Press History thread... or move it into my awesome new Poly Phi thread!)
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:15 (thirteen years ago) link
well let me turn that around: what makes you think that assange isnt doing the same thing? i.e. weighing sources and contextualizing credibility?
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:16 (thirteen years ago) link
or thats not the best way to put it
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:17 (thirteen years ago) link
what i mean to say is that if we define "weighing sources and contextualizing credibility" broadly enough to include the "reporters" who made up "the press in the 17th 18th 19th centures im not sure how we dont make the category broad enough to include assange
or, from a completely different direction: doesnt the the internet and the "information revolution" and the "democratization" of what the fuck ever change the nature of "context"?
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:19 (thirteen years ago) link
im just spitballing here
i think the nihilism of 'i'll print anything i get and i don't want to know who sent it to me and i don't really care about any kind of danger inherent in it' is new, i guess.
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:46 (thirteen years ago) link
(i guess to verify that it's true, so it's not the absolutely nihilistic position which wouldn't care even if the information is false -- Breitbart territory, maybe?)
― Mordy, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:48 (thirteen years ago) link
― Mordy, Friday, August 6, 2010 12:46 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i dont think this is new at all
― max, Friday, 6 August 2010 04:50 (thirteen years ago) link
its also not what assange is doing
yeah it pretty much is. don't agree w/ everything mordy is saying, but the core point that assange is an almighty dick, i am fully on board with
― unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 08:34 (thirteen years ago) link
Gotta say the US Gov't has been pretty effective at channeling discourse surrounding the leaks from things like "Hey wait a minute, here's proof that in the midst of cutting social programs across the board due to concerns for the national debt, we're funding our enemies" to "This guy is an almighty dick".
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:29 (thirteen years ago) link
Also LOL @ the Pentagon demanded they "return the secret documents". Has the Pentagon ever used a computer?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/08/06/1234225/Pentagon-Demands-Return-of-Leaked-Afghanistan-Documents?from=rss
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:32 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah sure, it's the govt that makes me think he's a dick, dick
― unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:35 (thirteen years ago) link
People should be legally accountable for actions that lead to people dying.
so I assume you are against people publishing things that might outrage terrorists, since terrorists often kill people because they have published things the terrorists didn't like
I mean seriously I can dig how freedom of the press is a pretty uncomfortable thing, but your position is basically only compatible with a wholly state-supervised press
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:35 (thirteen years ago) link
oh wait - people with the right cards in the brims of their fedoras "weigh" that stuff, as vs. these bad guys who don't even have hats
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:36 (thirteen years ago) link
fuck trusting a hat
― "It's far from 'loi' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:39 (thirteen years ago) link
All American taxpayers are funding these wars, and have contributed far more than Wikileaks towards people dying. But yeah I think it'd be morally a good thing to do.
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:40 (thirteen years ago) link
I mean seriously I can dig how freedom of the press is a pretty uncomfortable thing, but your position is basically only compatible with a wholly state-supervised press― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, August 6, 2010 3:35 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, August 6, 2010 3:35 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark
depends where you set limits on the public interest, which is the test in the UK on this kind of thing. if wikileaks illegally obtained information about a private individual and published it, that would not be cool or legal unless it were in the public interest. i basically think this recent leak can be defended as being in the public interest, but the names of informants, hmm, probably not.
anyway, assange has fucked his own petard by making his shit the centre of the story. the idea upthread was that as the NYT/Guardian/German_dudes went through the unfiltered mass of documentation, new shit would come to light. i dunno if that's really paid off. i guess they are in hock to the govt after all.
― unchill english bro (history mayne), Friday, 6 August 2010 14:42 (thirteen years ago) link