Convictions

To say journalism is under attack at present would be to minimize and simplify reality, almost to a comical degree.  It's been threatened for ages.  The current situation goes well beyond that.  What we are facing right now is nothing short of dire.

No doubt you're familiar with what's been going on this year, an extension of what's been happening for the past decade.  The drama surrounding WikiLeaks finally hit a fever pitch with the arrest and imprisonment of its founder Julian Assange this April.

Over the years, Assange has done much to anger and disappoint many, including a significant number of those who once enthusiastically supported him.  We could go on at great length about the harm caused by selective leaks which might have helped to sway public opinion or poor journalistic habits that seem designed more for harm than for release of information.  We see many saying he's getting what he deserves and that they have no sympathy.  And this is precisely what those in control, those who view the very concept of journalism as an annoyance and a roadblock, want people to conclude.

We're all too familiar with the popularity angle used by prosecutors and lawyers.  In 2000, when we found ourselves being sued by the Motion Picture Association of America, it wasn't actually because of anything we had done (linking to computer code that allowed DVDs to be played on Linux machines).  Many thousands of others had done the same thing.  Rather, we were selected to be sued because of who we were.  A bunch of hackers who had a history of defying the system and revealing security holes were a great target to aim a lawsuit at.  Had we been a Girl Scout chapter or a group of veterans, we probably wouldn't have lost the case, let alone been chosen.  But we were easily portrayed as evil to the mainstream and the courts, and that's why we were picked.

Now WikiLeaks obviously stood out a bit more and made some very powerful enemies by releasing a trove of information over the years.  They were always going to be a target.  But by focusing primarily on an individual who's easy to view as unsympathetic, the authorities have increased their odds of prevailing in an action that far more people would normally see as extremely dangerous.

At press time, there were a number of charges filed by the U.S. government against Assange, and the issue of extradition has yet to be decided by the British courts.  (It's interesting how so many discounted Assange's fear of this very scenario, which led to his self-imprisonment for the better part of a decade, but which turned out to be quite well-founded.)  It initially started with a single accusation, one that seemed almost too easy to refute due to its absurdity.  Assange was accused of helping Chelsea Manning crack a military computer password based on an intercepted chat log.  But there simply isn't any evidence that shows he actually did anything other than say he'd try to help.  We see this as an example of someone being strung along much more than we see anyone actually being given assistance.

The real charges came down weeks afterwards and they're what we all need to be concerned with.  Under the Espionage Act, Assange is being accused of publishing classified information.  What's most problematic here is that this is something that journalists have been doing in this country for as long as they've existed.  And this is the first time in history that the Espionage Act has been used in this manner.  If successful, there would be nothing at all to differentiate Assange's actions from those of The New York Times or smaller publications like the one you're reading.  Regardless of how you view Assange's actions or personality, there would be no distinction at all between him and any journalist if this became a precedent.

Back in the Obama administration, going after Assange by using the Espionage Act was something that was debated - and rejected.  The concerns over what it would mean to a free press, as well as the perception of it not being constitutional, were enough to reach the conclusion that this was a very bad idea.  But now, that's no longer the view from those in power.

We can't say we're surprised.  This administration has made no secret of its contempt for journalism, particularly the kind that asks them a lot of questions and uncovers facts that they want to keep concealed.  And we have no doubt that if this is successfully used against Assange, then it will also be used against more mainstream, more conscientious, and more professional journalists.  It's all about changing perceptions over the years.  What was once unthinkable is now perfectly normal.  So consider what is unfathomable now to be all too likely in the future.

Leaks are messy.  They're supposed to be.  Rarely does the unauthorized release of information not annoy the hell out of someone.  And, in some cases, leaks can be harmful to innocent people.  But if the information is already compromised, its publication is only verification of the poor security that existed, albeit irresponsible.  We've seen journalists reveal private information many times in the past, sometimes carefully and sometimes not.  Those who engage in the latter see their reputation suffer, along with that of anyone affiliated with them.  They can be sued and can lose the respect of colleagues.  But we don't imprison them just for being irresponsible at their job.  And we certainly don't invoke the Espionage Act.

Of course, the other disturbing part of this story centers on what is being done to Chelsea Manning, the source of the leaks in question years ago.  He has already paid the price for his actions and, after being pardoned, he should be free.  But, as we go to press, he is not.  Why?  Because he refuses to help the government in its case against Julian Assange.  Think of it.  The source of the leaks is being called upon to help imprison the publisher of those same leaks.  It's a bizarre reversal of the pressure that journalists can face to reveal their sources, an act of conviction that actually has been used on rare occasions to put journalists in jail.

Because Manning refuses to play this game, he has been quickly put back in prison.  It's incredible, and quite telling, to see such swift action taken against someone standing up for their beliefs while those in the government who ignore subpoenas, commit perjury, and want only disobey the law continue to walk free.

In the vast majority of cases, we are better off knowing the truth, whether it's the emails of a politician or the financial data of a leader.  As for so-called classified info, we should never blindly believe those who insist that certain things be kept secret without any neutral oversight.  That is a big part of what the Chelsea Manning revelations revealed through WikiLeaks in the first place.  We need to know the truth when individuals commit crimes and are protected simply because of who they are or who they're working for.  The "Collateral Murder" video showed us, through unbiased eyes, the killing of civilians and journalists (including two members of Reuters) by four U.S. Army soldiers.  We deserved to know about this, rather than have it covered up, as it had been up until the release.  And the people who help to reveal such truths need to be acknowledged as heroes who are actually protecting the values we're supposed to be standing for.

Of course, that's not what happened.  Instead of the people responsible for this violation of our own military's code being prosecuted, they were instead protected while the person who revealed the truth was punished and labeled a traitor.  This is a slap in the face to all those who risk their lives for their country and act honorably in its name, often paying far too high a price.  The values we're now expected to accept are being twisted beyond recognition.

It was in 2010, shortly after the release of this video, that Julian Assange came onto our Off The Hook radio program on April 7, 2010 and told us that he felt there was no safer place to be than the United States after having released it to the world.  At the time, many of us would have agreed, since a free press was sacred, at least on paper.  Now that paper is at great risk of being rewritten if current trends continue and if the populace doesn't see the dangerous path we're all being led towards.  This is not a time to be indifferent.