It may be a weak rhetorical device, but it’s also informational.
I have complex views of Assange.
1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial.
2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies.
3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal.
It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor.
He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point.
He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network.
Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted.
In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to.
Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests.
Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place.
Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.
> Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.
I take your point - Assange does not have a media empire and is not like Murdoch in that way.
However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists.
None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does.
He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher.
He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor.
If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists.
That’s just not accurate.
Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers.
I've been following the reporting from the witness testimonies and some of them detailed that a lot of work has went into editing (and supressing some of) the documents that he supposedly released without censoring names of assets. I posted these links previously in the thread but Daniel Ellsberg talks a bit about how this was handled:
Those actually seem to confirm my view. They don’t talk about Assange writing a story, or editing reports.
They talk about Wikileaks, his publishing organization, working as a peer in cooperation with the NYT, the Guardian, and other publishers. They describe his priorities and concerns and the protocols he wanted to use.
All of these are consistent with Assange as the creator of Wikileaks standing as a publisher.
I was trying to illustrate that he was exhibiting editorial discretion over a very bulk and voluminous material. That makes him an editor, on behalf of Wikileaks as the publisher. You might argue that an editor that didn't come from a journalistic background is not a journalist, but I think others feel differently.
I'm pretty sure I read in the articles covering the hearings that some journalist organizations were claiming he is one. Found a mention in day 8 of the hearings reporting (search for mentions of Chelsea Manning): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
Your post is way more thoughtful than mine will ever be but I really disagree with your use of psychological concepts such as gaslighting to this case.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting
This does not make sense to me and seems to amount to blaming Assange for the hunt he was subjected to.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
So the US and the UK are persons with their own feelings that we should respect ?
With regard to gaslighting, I acknowledge that some people use this word to mean a very serious and deliberate kind of manipulation.
I’m not blaming Assange for what he’s being subjected to.
On the other hand I also don’t think he or anyone else would imagine that there wouldn’t be a response to a perceived threat.
I may agree with him that we should live in a society that lives up to its ideals.
However we both know it doesn’t, and national security fears over whistleblowers are not necessarily unfounded.
I’m not suggesting he’s to blame for an unfair trial. However it’s also clear that he knew his actions would be seen as anti-American, and indeed I presume he would stand by those actions and that assessment of America. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he finds himself in this position. In many ways this confirms what he has been saying. The question is - is this choice of his going to move us in a positive direction?
I am quite unsure of that.
I agree that we need more words for the concept of gaslighting- there are lots of nuances around it.
As for ‘insecurities’ I do mean that as a psychological analogy, but I think it’s a good way to look at it.
I’m not arguing that we should respect the U.K. or the US as people who have feelings.
I’m saying that like a person with insecurities, there are actions which elicit a threat response from countries.
I’m also saying that,
just like a person, these may or may not be reflective of reality. If they are, then a defensive response is appropriate, even if incongruent with our higher ideals for who the person or country aspires to be.
I have complex views of Assange.
1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial.
2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies.
3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal.
It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor.
He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point.
He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network.
Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted.
In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to.
Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests.
Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place.
Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.