Journalism can be defined as the practice of finding and accessing information, analysing and curating that information into accessible stories, and then publishing those stories. A crucial proviso is that your journalistic practice adheres to the legal and ethical frameworks guiding information acquisition and publication.
Based on this, Julian Assange is a journalist. Yes, there are opinions and discussions regarding his understanding and willingness to adhere to journalism ethical frameworks, but such discussions frequently also apply to journalists employed by legacy media organisations. Case in point: Channel Seven’s behaviour in landing its Bruce Lehrmann interview. Lots of ethical issues there.
What is a journalist?
Before the arrival of the internet, journalism was defined by those that had the means of publication — printing presses and distribution of hard copy newspapers, or a broadcast licence for radio or television and the very expensive equipment needed to produce it.
That all changed when anyone with a decent connection, a smartphone and a laptop could become a potential publisher — for good and for bad.
This means we need to change the question from “Who is a journalist?” to “Who does journalism?”.
This has a crucial impact on legal issues, such as who should be covered by journalist shield laws, potentially protecting journalists from naming confidential sources in court when ordered to do so by a judge.
We have seen this change in federal, ACT and Queensland shield laws. To quote a 2021 Queensland government discussion paper, “Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory [and Queensland] legislation defines a journalist as a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by a source with the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.”
The pre-internet definition of journalism requiring a journalist to be employed or contracted by a media organisation is severely outdated, and excludes new forms of journalism such as citizen journalism, social media-based journalism, new media start-ups and blogging. Why shouldn’t a blogger with a large number of subscribers (paying or non-paying) be covered by shield laws? Under the pre-internet definition, would Crikey reporters even be labelled journalists?
Ethics are key
It is essential that journalism is practiced legally and ethically, and that what is produced and published is in the public interest.
Publications by Assange and WikiLeaks have arguably been in the highest public interest, exposing the brutal true face of war and shining a light on potential war crimes.
An exception, I would argue, would be the publication of the emails hacked from the US Democratic Party by Russian government-controlled hackers. This was a mistake and not in the public interest as it interfered with the US 2016 presidential election in a way that confused rather than informed US voters.
But this error in judgment doesn’t exclude Assange from being a journalist. Journalists are human beings and human beings make mistakes.
Blowing the whistle
Consider former Australian defence lawyer David McBride, who was recently sentenced to almost six years in jail for supplying classified documents to an ABC journalist exposing alleged war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan.
Similarly, former Australian Tax Office staffer Richard Boyle will not be protected by whistleblower protection and faces many years in jail should he be found guilty at his upcoming trial.
Perhaps McBride and Boyle would have been better off using WikiLeaks’ highly encrypted drop box and remained anonymous?
The definition of journalism will become increasingly important as the public’s trust in journalism falls. The industry will have to act to rebuild public trust. Without that trust, the business model of journalism will fail and fewer and fewer people will pay for news.
Importantly, trust cannot be rebuilt by legacy media organisations hanging on to outdated definitions.
More constructive would be to move with the times and acknowledge that the face and practice of journalism have changed and that new journalists are knocking on the door.
A potent way to rebuild trust in journalism would be for its practitioners to join a voluntary certification program, which has been suggested as part of a future Media Freedom Act in Australia. In such a code we may see journalists from WikiLeaks, the ABC, News Corp, Crikey and Nine alongside bloggers and citizen journalists.
Let’s come together, new and old reporters, and produce great public interest journalism in Australia, rather than squabbling about who gets to call themselves what.
Do you agree that Julian Assange is a journalist? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
