On Julian Assange and journalism
Jacquie Thomson writes: I’m no longer a journalist as currently I don’t practise the profession I was trained in. I was glad to read Johan Lidberg’s well-researched story, which included definitions of journalism, old and more recent.
As for Assange, I join the majority of others with a journalistic background and whistleblower supporters in feeling immensely relieved he is home and safe at last.
Lidberg’s definition, which I quote here in part, includes: “the practice of finding and accessing information, analysing and curating that information into accessible stories, and then publishing those stories”.
This definition provides clarity for the key issue in deciding “who does journalism”, Lidberg’s ultimate question.
It’s the analysis and curation that’s missing from Assange’s practices. Dumping tens of thousands of documents publicly doesn’t make him a journalist. It makes him a publisher. Publishers deserve (almost?) all of the same protections that should be provided internationally for journalists, but they also carry a greater responsibility. That responsibility mainly relates to ethics, accuracy, journalistic supervision and the timing of publication.
I am less forgiving than Lidberg on the issue of the release of the “Clinton emails”. I am convinced that no ethical publisher would have published them at that time.
It must be a huge burden for Assange to carry the knowledge that WikiLeaks is partly (largely?) responsible for putting the last nail in the coffin of Clinton’s chance to keep Trump out of the White House in 2016. It’s a helluva legacy. With the drab performance of Biden in the first debate, it’s still having a huge and terrifying impact.
Peter Barry writes: It is a relief to have Julian Assange back on Australian soil. The legal mechanism that made this possible was contrived, but necessary to appease his American antagonists. He should now enjoy a period of quiet physical and psychological recovery in the embrace of his family.
His early arrogance seems to have dissipated. He may still have a role to play as an éminence grise in the pantheon of investigative journalism, but a direct provocative role should be avoided. The quiet and timely interventions by Albanese and Rudd are admirable. It is a very satisfactory outcome altogether.
Neil Ewart writes: I am a Queenslander and we are a bit slow on things political, so can someone explain the persecution and charges by the US Department of Justice against Julian Assange when it has an orange individual that had classified and secret government documents stashed in his bathroom and elsewhere, refused a court order to return them and is walking around free with the possibility (please, Lord, not again) that he will pardon himself?
On Dutton’s nuclear plans
John Attwood writes: It is plain to see, for anyone with a modicum of intelligence, that Dutton’s nuclear power thing is quite simply to draw investment from renewables/storage and to keep the coal fires burning.
It is almost axiomatic that (if elected) the Coalition would declare that it’d been hoodwinked by some nefarious bastards and that nuclear power wasn’t really an option. At that point, we’d have spent a gazillion dollars refurbishing old coal burners and continue to pay through the nose for the output, when the same cost would more than treble the power output of the renewable sector.
Quite simply, Dutton is playing wedge politics. And I quote his attitude to the Voice: “If you don’t know, say no!”
David Trembath writes: It is not so much that Dutton’s “policy” is hypocritical as the media, including the ABC, treating Dutton and a glossy brochure as a leader and a policy. The nuclear brochure is obviously the product of Toby the work experience kid, but why is Dutton using it?
It’s a political strategy, one which nobody except the barking mad expect to ever be put into action. It’s something to say to get headlines and to keep tempers stoked. A couple of weeks ago it was immigration. Straight out of the Trump handbook.
On the retirement of Matt Kean
Kieran Simpson writes: In lauding Matt Kean, perhaps Bernard Keane has forgotten that Kean was the worst environment minister NSW has seen. Under him, land clearing increased by 1,300% and koalas became functionally extinct. Just because Kean likes renewables, it doesn’t make him a saviour by any stretch. His leaving NSW politics might give the last few remaining koalas some breathing room.
On political donations law reform
Julia Bovard writes: I totally agree that legislation should require political donations to be transparent and traceable to something more substantial than a post office box. A limit on the amount of donations may also be a good idea.
What is the function of political donations? Is it to curry influence in the hope of getting government contracts? It could be just to show and bolster support for that particular brand of politics. Whatever the reason, voters are entitled to be able to know which places and individuals support political parties. This is a democracy, not an oligopoly or dictatorship.
