LOL-State Dept: Having ‘political objective disqualifies Assange from being considered a journalist’

[kpete]

The US State Department, however, appears to have crossed that very muddy line with its criticism of secrets outlet WikiLeaks.

Speaking to reporters recently, State Dept. Assistant Secretary Philip Rowley said that the United States does not consider WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be a "journalist" or "whistleblower." He insisted that, under US law, he's to be considered a "political actor."

His criteria for reclassifying someone from protected "journalist" to a legally vunerable "political actor": "Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist," Crowley said.

Asked what Assange's political objective is, he replied: "I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist."

more:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/state-dept-political-objective-disqualifies-reporter-from-considered-journalist/

[pnwmom]

1. Very true. Journalists (as opposed to opinion-pushers) don't call

for the resignation of political figures, as he has called on Obama and Clinton to resign.

[jpgray]

4. No journalist called on Rumsfeld to resign? Do you follow political journalism at all?

[pnwmom]

25. Editorialists do, when they express their opinions. But it is not part

of a journalist's job.

[jpgray]

35. Editorialists, then, are not protected by freedom of the press?

Advocacy journalism removes those protections?

[Xithras]

10. Bull. Every newspaper in America has an editorial page, and they've all taken political positions.

From the New York Times right on down to my local daily rag, every newspaper in America expresses a political opinion. Hell, that's WHY THEY'RE PROTECTED in the first place! Newspapers like the Boston Gazette and the Massachusetts Spy were instrumental in formenting public opinion against further obedience to Britain, and were the public forums of their day. Thomas Jefferson, the founder of our party and the drafter of so many of our nations founding documents, once famously stated "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." He was talking about newspapers like those.

His position is not only stupid and unconstitutional, it's anti-American, anti-freedom, and should be taken as grounds for him to be FIRED. Every newspaper in America should be calling for his resignation tomorrow morning!

[pnwmom]

27. Those are EDITORIALS. Journalists write NEWS. Editors

and others write opinion pieces and editorials. It is only on networks like Faux news that the distinction is blurred, which is why REAL journalists are so critical of Faux news.

[Hissyspit]

40. Activist investigative journalism?

Is not journalism?

Of course it is.

I've been an editor. I was a journalist.

[pnwmom]

47. Not unless you consider Faux news to be journalism.

Faux is not the standard as far as I'm concerned.

[Hissyspit]

48. Faux News is not activist investigative journalism.

A vast amount of Fox News is purely false propaganda.

The fact that you can't tell the difference(s) and that you can't see the long history of these issues and complexities in them undermines all your arguments.

[Xithras]

43. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that editorials aren't covered by the 1st amendment!?!?!

Luckily for the rest of us, your opinion runs counter to 200 years of history and Supreme Court rulings.

Near v. Minnesota, 1931. This is the foundational case for press rights, and it was quite blunt. Any American law that prohibits the press from publishing information of ANY type is inherently unconstitutional, unless it falls under a very tiny umbrella of exceptions (obscenity, calls for violent insurrection, release of certain time-limited information during wartime, such as soldier flight departure times or battle plans before combat has occurred).

Neither 'Near v. Minnesota' nor any subsequent case has curtailed those restrictions based on the opinions or political motivations of the person publishing the information.

Freedom of the Press is one of the closest "absolute" rights we possess in this country. Wikileaks, as a publishing organization, clearly qualifies for journalism protections...Julian Assange's personal beliefs or motivations aside. Also, remember that Assange is only one member of the organization. Wikileaks isn't someone's personal blog where Assange is just spouting his personal beliefs...Wikileaks is a registered nonprofit corporation located in Sweden. Why Sweden? Because it registered as a media organization there to gain coverage under the Swede's broad and far-reaching media protection laws.

It's not just a blog, it's an actual, registered media organization in a foreign country, run by an advisory board, of which Assange is merely one member of. There is ZERO factual basis for an argument that they aren't "journalists".

[pnwmom]

46. Amazing the conclusions some people come to. No I'm not.

But I AM claiming that an editorial, in a legitimate news outlet, is carefully distinguished from the NEWS. Both are types of protected speech, but one is opinion and the other attempts to report news in an unbiased manner. Which is why Faux news is not news or journalism at all -- a responsible journalist tries to stay above the fray and leaves the opinion-making to the editors.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Assange is Wikileaks editor in chief.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

Not true.

Study history of journalism, please.

State Department is full of it.

[EFerrari]

13. Unless they are being asked for their opinion in an interview. nt

[kenny blankenship]

15. So you're saying IF Clinton or Obama broke the law, they shouldn't be called to acct.-asked 2 resign

[EFerrari]

19. Assange was answering direct questions. He didn't write a news article

or even an editorial on this topic.

[kenny blankenship]

31. I read his quote, he said IF IT CAN BE SHOWN that Clinton directed others to break the law

then she should be held accountable politically. Resignation is a political penalty not a criminal penalty.

Dishonest people hereabouts always delete his conditional phrasing, and make believe that Julian Assange was calling for Hillary Clinton's head on a stick or something.

"I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said. "But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033771,00.html

This is the biggest NOTHING controversy in the long history of bullshit.

[EFerrari]

32. Agreed. n/t

[pnwmom]

28. No, why would you think I'm saying that? I'm saying that

it isn't up to a journalist to make that call -- journalists are supposed to stay above the political fray in order to maintain some objectivity.

[EFerrari]

30. And he wasn't acting as a journalist when he answered those questions.

He was the subject of the interview.

You do understand that journalists have 1st Amendment rights, too?

[TorchTheWitch]

23. you weren't around when Nixon was pres were you?

Is there some reason you don't get the whole point of a free press?

I think we've had propaganda press in this country so long people have forgotten what not only the press is supposed to do but what they are allowed to do.

[pnwmom]

29. I was and I do. And I've been around long enough to remember

when a journalist or news network wasn't supposed to be tied to a particular political party, as Faux news is the Rethugs -- or to take political stands, except in carefully designated opinion pieces.

[intheflow]

41. Ah, but Fox news fabricates it's slanted "news".

Wikileaks didn't fabricate anything. The documents themselves are testaments to their truth. I also don't see Assange as being politically aligned with any political party. First of all, he's Australian, and secondly, he released leaks about both the Bush and Obama administrations.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. LOL. Durrrrrrrrrr

[myrna minx]

37. Have you heard of this thing called "Fox News"? n/t

[ddeclue]

2. ok Fox News hand in those press passes..

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

6. They should. Which is why Obama wasn't taking interviews

with them.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Yet Fox isn't a problem?

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

5. Who here thinks Fox employs real journalists? I don't. n/t

[CJCRANE]

8. Exactly. They're political operatives.

It's time to round them up.

[xiamiam]

7. anarchist? ..sigh..nt

[EFerrari]

18. I know. They got nothing. They can't describe Wikileaks

without reminding them that government secrecy is a bad thing.

[Horse with no Name]

9. That should disqualify quite a few channels

Not to mention politico.com, etc.

[Donnachaidh]

11. So when are they going to indict Fox News?

ALL of them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. That means FoxNews is disqualifed from being called journalism?

[pnwmom]

33. Of course. Who here would call Faux news a legitimate source

of journalism? Or has Faux become the standard now?

[EFerrari]

14. PJ, Mr. World Press Freedom Day himself!

:rofl:

[Sal Minella]

16. The "Political Actors" on Fox News should start wearing

little microphone-pins in their lapels, maybe, so people will think they're actually journalists???

[snot]

17. Absolutely ridiculous.

[TNLib]

20. That's just silly because he has no clear political agenda then obliviously he's an anarchist

I'm sorry but because he clearly has no bias, in favor of one political view point or governmental view point over another.

This makes him a pure journalist completely untainted by bias, not an anarchist.


Philip Rowley = Epic Fail

[pnwmom]

34. Being an anarchist IS a clear political agenda.

Being an anarchist means you are against all governments, which is just as much of a political stance as being against one particular form or another.

[CJCRANE]

36. Has Assange ever claimed to be an anarchist?

These accusations are all somewhat vague.

[pnwmom]

44. He has said that the leakings are anarchist acts. n/t

[TNLib]

42. Because he doesn't show favoritism for any particular government doesn't make him an anarchist

it makes him unbiased.

Unbiased makes him probably the best journalist in the world. If only all journalist were as unbiased the world would be a much better place and we may actually have an informed citizenry.

[pnwmom]

45. He stopped being unbiased the moment he called for someone's resignation.

That's not the act of an unbiased journalist.

[walldude]

21. "He is what we say he is"

And they are too stupid to figure out that that attitude is what created Assange in the first place.

[nashville_brook]

22. oh wow. can we please PLEASE put this into wider use??!!

PROSECUTE FOX!!

[L0oniX]

24. Ok now I want to be a journalist so I can legally have freedom of speech.

[boppers]

38. Ooh, I didn't know it worked that way!

Maybe if I become a minister, I'll be allowed to pray?

[krabigirl]

39. Oh no, not an anarchist!! Scary! Lmao. Anyway, who cares what they think? I don't.