WSJ Claims That Wikileaks Is Not Journalism But Espionage By Taking A Bunch Of Quotes Out Of Context

Failures

from the reporting! dept

Mon, Mar 18th 2013 2:03pm — Mike Masnick

The Wall Street Journal's former publisher, Gordon Crovitz, has apparently decided to follow the lead of the NY Times' former managing editor Bill Keller in misrepresenting things having to do with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange to new and impressive heights. Crovitz has a history of being fact-challenged, especially when it comes to the internet, and his latest opinion piece entitled Aiding the Enemy Isn't Journalism is an impressive work of bad journalism. Let's start from the top.

It looks as if Pfc. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange will go down in history as outliers, not trend setters. There have been no copycat leaks of massive quantities of diplomatic and intelligence documents, despite how easy the Internet makes it to leak and the fact that more than four million Americans have clearance to access government secrets.

Um, might that have something to do with the fact that the US government went absolutely apeshit over the release and charged Manning with a variety of offenses that have the possibility of capital punishment? We've already discussed the fact that the administration's reaction likely created massive chilling effects for whistleblowers around the world. Pointing to the lack of anyone willing to step into that breach doesn't mean Manning was necessarily an "outlier." It just means the government's intimidation campaign against whistleblowers may have been quite effective.

Furthermore, requiring an exact "copycat" as the standard for whether or not leaking government docs was a one-time ordeal is just silly. Prior to Manning's leak, Wikileaks had a regular stream of important documents leaked to it, so I'm not sure what Crovitz thinks he's proving here.

Among the prosecution's more than 100 witnesses will be a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. He'll testify to finding Manning-Assange documents on the terrorist leader's computer. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

How much do you want to bet that terrorists have read the Wall Street Journal as well at times? How does that matter?

The key element of this espionage charge is intent: Did Pfc. Manning mean to give intelligence to the enemy? In his 35-page plea, Pfc. Manning describes himself as a whistleblower, but he doesn't explain what he was blowing the whistle on. The documents didn't disclose government wrongdoing. Instead, WikiLeaks posted unedited diplomatic and intelligence cables that identified by name Iraqis, Afghans and others who were helping the U.S. war effort. People were outed as homosexuals in countries where that makes them a target for deadly violence. Prosecutors will identify a long list of victims.

And here, Crovitz is just lying. Either that or he's ignorant. First off, Manning highlighted some key things that he was blowing the whistle on in both his chat with Adrian Lamo and in his plea. Things like the "collateral murder" episode, in which US military helicopters shot reporters. I'd consider that (and the ensuing coverup) to be "government wrongdoing." Furthermore, it's simply untrue that Wikileaks just "posted unedited diplomatic and intelligence cables." Wikileaks worked with a small group of newspapers -- including the NY Times, The Guardian and others -- to sort through the leaked cables, redact sensitive information, and highlight which stories were important.

Building a case that Pfc. Manning knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy seems open and shut. The more interesting question is how this requirement of intent applies to Mr. Assange.

No, it doesn't seem "open and shut" at all. Having the press report on something embarrassing is not "knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy." If it is, then shouldn't Bob Woodward and his White House sources be facing similar charges? After all, Woodward's book Obama's War was recommended by Al Qaeda for people to read after the death of Osama bin Laden. Woodward's book contained much more classified info, including the code names for NSA programs, details of CIA activities in Afghanistan, and details about Chinese hackers breaking into Obama's computers. But somehow that's considered legitimate reporting, but Manning's activities are "an open and shut case" of knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy? That's ridiculous. Manning gave information to the press. It may have embarrassed the US at times, but that's not the same as giving "intelligence to the enemy."

President Obama has used the Espionage Act often, invoking it six times to bring cases against government officials for providing classified information to the media—twice the number of such cases brought by other presidents since the law was passed in 1917. So it's at least curious that Mr. Assange hasn't been charged.

It's not that curious at all when you realize that Wikileaks didn't "leak" information it had privileged access to, but rather worked with other news organizations to publish information that had been leaked to Wikileaks.

Bill Keller, a former executive editor of the New York Times, recently wrote: "As a matter of law I believe WikiLeaks and the New York Times are equally protected by the First Amendment." That misses the point. Unlike WikiLeaks, the mission of newspapers is to inform the public. Mr. Assange's stated mission is to undermine the U.S. That ought to make it much easier to prove that he intends to help the enemy.

This is a total whitewash of actual history. We actually wrote about Wikileaks right when it launched, and its goal from the beginning was also to "inform the public." And, early on it had little interest in the US. When it launched, we noted that it was focused on Asia, the Middle East and Africa -- areas where they were interested in exposing corruption, which is a public service. It's only the rewriting of history that suggests Wikileaks was about anyone trying to "undermine the US." I'm sure that, now, having seen everything the US has done to go absolutely apeshit about Wikileaks, that Assange doesn't have pleasant feelings towards the country (of which he is not and has never been a citizen), but it seems like an incredible leap beyond basic facts to argue that the mission of Wikileaks was to "undermine the US."

"An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently," [Assange] wrote in 2006, "cannot act to preserve itself."

It might help to read where that came from, and note that it actually builds off a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, which says: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship." Assange's "manifesto" may have been naive and silly, grandiose and full of itself, but that hardly makes it evidence of a plan to undermine the US specifically. It is a general call for stopping authoritarianism around the globe by increasing transparency and stopping the powers that be from communicating too much in secret, something that many people feel is a reasonable goal.

But news executives and media lawyers should think twice before treating Mr. Assange as if he were a journalist. If leaders in the news industry blur the distinction between their journalists and self-proclaimed enemies of the state like Mr. Assange, they may encourage prosecutors to make the same false equivalence.

Frankly, I'm no fan of Assange, who often seems incredibly self-important for no good reason, but Crovitz's willingness to toss out the press freedom he relies on, based on taking a few quotes and actions completely out of context to claim that a media organization can be declared the "enemy of the state" for wishing to change government to make it more open and more responsive to the will of the people is really frightening. That he doesn't realize how that can be twisted and turned around on himself and the wider Wall Street Journal directly is even more troubling.

Just for fun, how difficult would it be to make the case that Crovitz himself is an "enemy of the state"? Let's make this clear: in the following paragraph I am deliberately taking Crovitz's comments out of context, in the same way he did with Assange's (though, unlike Crovitz, I actually link to the original sources -- Crovitz just implies what he thinks Assange and Wikileaks have said most of the time). Let's go: In one recent column, he supports "a march on Washington" to change US policy to make it more immigrant friendly. So, he's advocating attacking our own government for the aid of foreigners? Hmmm... In another column, Crovitz actively calls for tech companies to become "united to go after overreaching government." That same column complains about the US government and laws they pass. That sounds like a call for revolution and overthrowing the US government. Clearly, he's an enemy of the state. In another piece he calls for ramping up the police state in the US, cheering on entrapment, which seems to clearly go against American ideals. In another piece, Crovitz cheers on France while criticizing the US government. In another story, he calls for using US taxpayer money to help Iran and China!

And that's just with a very, very quick stroll through some of Crovitz's recent opinion pieces. Meanwhile, the organization he writes for, The Wall Street Journal, is in the news today for supposedly bribing Chinese officials. Hmm...

Yes, my paragraph about Crovitz is totally bogus, but if he's willing to toss out freedom of the press, and twist statements about seeking more transparency and being against authoritarianism as being an "enemy of the state", well, he shouldn't be surprised when people show that he, too, is an enemy of the US.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bradley manning, espionage, gordon crovitz, journalism, julian assange
Companies: wikileaks

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 1:10pm

Only available to subscribers...
Damn, and I wanted to see the comment section!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:21pm

Re: Only available to subscribers...
post your email address. I'll send it to you as a PDF.

Damn, I hope Gordon Crovitz doesn't read this..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:21pm

WSJ isn't journalism. They don't just report the facts. They (mis)interpret meanings for the reader.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:22pm

�If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.� ~ Cardinal Richelieu
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:23pm

Re:
Well, it *IS* owned by Rupert Murdoch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:26pm

President Obama has used the Espionage Act often, invoking it six times to bring cases against government officials for providing classified information to the media�twice the number of such cases brought by other presidents since the law was passed in 1917. So it's at least curious that Mr. Assange hasn't been charged."

An obvious attempt to brush away the fact that, OBAMA HAS USED THE "ESPIONAGE ACT", or the "BULLSHIT ACT", MORE THEN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:27pm

Not spam:
youtube.com/watch?v=2dvv-Yib1Xg

This is a perfect example of how to spin things your way, regardless of the facts. Watch it, it's entertaining and fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:27pm

Re:
Right, and if you recall, it was James J. Hill who said "Give me snuff, whiskey and Swedes, and I will build a railroad to hell.

So, just remember, Swedes will be responsible for bringing you back to life after you've been hung by a man of the cloth. Swedes are an interesting group of people, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:32pm

It looks like sour grapes from my end with the info in this article. Gordon Crovitz seems teed that he didn't get control of all this info as an exclusive.

But then major media is no longer dependable as a news source to let the public know when politicians are out screwing the public. It's all full of political propaganda with bias so thick you can use a knife on it.

This is not to mention how the government now treats releases of information. If it's an insider prepping the public for the newest action their government is going to take, then it is an unidentified source that never is sought for leaking information. If it is a whistleblower then we need to throw the book at them for releasing information we didn't want out. These types of actions in reporting show the public what is going on. Despite the belief of the publishers of these rags, they see it for what it is.

It has resulted in my personal case of not using nor going to major media for my news. It can't be believed and no faith can be put in the spot that it is accurate and fair. I find instead that I go to other countries for my home nation's news as they are less likely to be bias for the same reasons. Oh to be clear they do indeed have bias. Places like RT news will certainly show it to you. The trick is to recognize this for what it is and then glean the info out of it. Those not in favor of your topic of choice will be happy to show you all the bad points...not necessarily the good ones.

We've had more examples of what the merging of all the media outlets into 6 major owners does. It drops the people needed for investigative news and starts pulling news from syndicated feeds. No one is on the streets keeping the politicians honest or exposing their wrong doings to public disdain and humiliation.

As was once said

It is a newspaper's duty to print the news, and raise hell.
-- Wilbur F. Storey (1819-1884) Editor, Chicago Times (1861)

..and that is not what is being done coming from lamescream media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trevor (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:42pm

D'oh!
But news executives and media lawyers should think twice before treating Mr. Assange as if he were a journalist. If leaders in the news industry blur the distinction between their journalists and self-proclaimed enemies of the state like Mr. Assange, they may encourage prosecutors to make the same false equivalence.

Seems to me he is bluring the distinction between journalism and his self proclaimed enemy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:42pm

Re:
Indeed. Boston Globe recently offered a promotion to reporter-now-editor Brian McGrory. Prior to recieving the promotion, he wrote 9 articles about Boston-Based Liberty Mutual Insurance. Customer-wise, they are about the size of Allstate. Allstate's CEO is paid something rediculous like $14M a year. Liberty Mutual paid it's senior executive $50M a year, gave them access to five corporate jets, which fly to places like Hawaii on Saturday nights, and return by Monday.

So yes, Brian McGrory was promoted to Editor as a result of good research and journalism. Gordon Crovitz is Former Publisher.

As for the CEO of Liberty Mutual, well, that is weird too. He's still on the board of directors, as chairman, but no longer has the CEO title.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:50pm

Re:
But then major media is no longer dependable as a news source to let the public know when politicians are out screwing the public. It's all full of political propaganda with bias so thick you can use a knife on it.

Careful now! If you use a knife on the media the police could charge you with attempted murder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 2:59pm

WSJ has always been our version of Pravda, not sure why people take their opinion seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:01pm

He'll testify to finding Manning-Assange documents on the terrorist leader's computer.

The Seals who killed bin Laden were definitely not browsing through his computer during the raid and almost certainly not the ones performing forensic analyses later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corwin (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:13pm

Re:
Didn't Manning actually go to the NYT and WSJ with the leaks before sending them to the Internet egomaniac? IIRC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:19pm

Re: Re:
I believe he offered the leaks to them, but they ignored him, leading him to go elsewhere with the info.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:19pm

Bully for Teddy Roosevelt!
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship."

Now there was a trust-buster, a true enemy of corporations and bankers, not a front-man for international thieves as every "President" since, oh, Kennedy, probably.

Anyhoo, "journalists" are ALL definitely controlled these days by the "invisible government". "Journalists" are always a target for influence, and nearly always worship power and like being behind the scenes, so doesn't take much to bribe them to cheerlead for wars or attack Populists.

If you even mildly understood human nature, Mike, you wouldn't constantly be surprised that those in high positions call for more gov't power. Gov't is nearly always just a re-distribution scheme that takes from the poor and gives to The Rich. Journalists in particular are utterly blind to "free speech" concerns because think they're in the power structure and won't be affected by controls on everyone else. Journalists calling for controls on the press is a classic pattern, repeated over and over. Every generation of privileged frat boys think they're entitled to rule the world; this Crovitz is just typical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Divide by Zero (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:21pm

How much do you want to bet that terrorists have read the Wall Street Journal as well at times?

Suppose it depends how much is behind a paywall. See, they're good for national security, and all you freetards who are anti-paywall are aiding the enemy!!

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:27pm

If Assange in his role with wikileaks were guilty of espionage, then it would be extremely difficult to explain why other countries should not be able to indict US military and intelligence officials on similar charges; Wikileaks' role in leaking the documents could not be more quintessentially journalistic. The Department of State would cheer from the sidelines if someone from Iranian, Russian, or Chinese intelligence publicly aired any of their dirty laundry, and while they've stopped short of actually prosecuting Wikileaks, the persecution thereof is a terrible example to set.

Manning's role, however, is fairly cut and dry; whether his actions meet the actual standard of espionage depends on where you sit but there is unquestionably grounds for the US to prosecute him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:34pm

Re: Re:
The very same man whose company cancelled 'Firefly'.

Damn them and their lies!

Bastards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
QuietgyInTheCorner (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:48pm

Mission of Big Name News Media
"the mission of newspapers is to inform the public" - really? Seems to me their mission is to (1) make their big-money friends look good (no matter what they've done) and (2) make money by selling advertising and subscriptions. So they take the "news", wash it, spin it, sometimes candy coat it and then they publish it. Sometimes they even accidentally include some facts!
They decide what is "news worthy" and what isn't. They don't REPORT the news - they create it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 3:53pm

Re:
WSJ: "we carry water"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 4:21pm

Re: Only available to subscribers...
WSJ..........What the Conservatives read.It is all making sense now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 4:26pm

Re:
You mean We Shit Jumbles?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 4:42pm

Re:
... and therefore everyone should jump aboard the crazy train to gop land, egads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 4:46pm

Re:
"when politicians are out screwing the public"

For most of them, this would be always
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vic, 18 Mar 2013 @ 5:09pm

The whole story reminds me of an early Soviet journalism of 1930-40s and the way it treated "enemies of the people". An anonymous phone call to a newspaper editor - and voila! here is a news article in a next day paper about a very bad man (or a whole group of them), revealing all his/their wrongdoing and spying anti-Soviet intentions and associations. It really is not funny anymore how the US turns more and more into a Soviet Union...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Davey, 18 Mar 2013 @ 5:32pm

Ah, the richness of the irony.
One could clip a lot of quotes off the WSJ editorial page and prove that they are neo-facist insurgents out to overthrow the US government. And it would be a more substantive claim than theirs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 18 Mar 2013 @ 5:56pm

Looks like a legacy media player with no remaining credibility trying to discredit an upstart competitor.

"NO! They are not journalists! They do not tell the people what the government wants them to hear! They just put out information without editorializing it, what kind of system is that?!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 6:09pm

Re:
The US and the Soviet Union are really becoming one in the same. It's scary to see the parallels of two empires spinning wildly out of control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 6:24pm

I'm not at all surprised!
Given that the WSJ is now owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, why should we be surprised by this? If there is any "journalist" that takes quotes out of context, all of RM's media outlets use that as a watchword... What a maroon!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re:
Why would you do that, one is as bad as the other.....get a clue already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 Mar 2013 @ 11:24pm

Mr. Assange's stated mission is to undermine the U.S.
I wasn't aware that exposing corruption, ineptitude and greed would undermine a system rather than help to get it fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2013 @ 1:02am

Re: Re: Re:
The inherently correct response is Revolution, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 4:05am

Re: Only available to subscribers...
If it's not accessible then what Mike said about him is all true since we can't verify. I propose capital punishment for that terrorist!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 4:08am

Even if Assange/Dotcom was an asshole the US have been so aggressive and the 'authoritarian' inclination is so blatant that they would still be seen as the good guys in the end. It's a shame, Wikileaks should have been supported anywhere. So much for the land of the free eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2013 @ 4:44am

Re: Re: Re:
Poe's law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2013 @ 4:52am

Re: Mission of Big Name News Media
There is very little actual news in the so called news these days. It started going down hill several decades ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2013 @ 4:54am

Re: Re:
In Soviet Russia,
news reports you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 19 Mar 2013 @ 5:32am

Re:
It's all in the name: the 'Wall Street Journal'. Who takes anything these people say seriously? They cater to big money and big government, so they're gonna try to make them both look good. What are you expecting, unbiased journalism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NON APPLICABLE, 19 Mar 2013 @ 6:31am

Gordon Crovitz IS AN ANAGRAM of IGNORANT TWAT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
horse with no name, 19 Mar 2013 @ 8:19am

Re:
If assange was helping or encouraging him in any way, then he is also in shit. Assange does not appear to be the innocent bystander that got handed an envelope of papers, rather someone who encourages manning to do the work for him.

Why do you think Assange is hiding out in the embassy? I doubt the food is that good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2013 @ 10:34am

Re: Re:
LOL wut?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 2:39pm

Just for fun, how difficult would it be to make the case that Crovitz himself is an "enemy of the state"?
I'd really like to see this expanded to a full-length piece.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 4:39pm

Treason
If giving secrets to the American People is giving secrets to the enemy, I would direct your attention to one of the definitions of treason: Making war upon the United States as a citizen of the United States.
[ link to this | view in thread ]