Via their posting on various blogs, this December 2nd press briefing with Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley caught my attention. It's an interesting primer for anyone who thinks the U.S. government has some kind of ironclad case against Wikileaks.
Reporters questioned Mr. Crowley on a number of issues regarding the organization. Interestingly, he gave something of a non-denial denial as to whether anyone in the U.S. government had pressured Amazon to kick the organization off their servers. The most troubling comments, however, came in response to questions over Wikileaks' status, and whether or not what they were doing qualified as journalism.
QUESTION: Some of the governments that have been mentioned in these cables are heavily censoring press in terms of releasing some of this information. How do you feel about that? (Laughter.)
MR. CROWLEY: The official position of the United States Government and the State Department has not changed. We value a vibrant, active, aggressive media. It is important to the development of civil society in this country and around the world. Our views have not changed, even if occasionally there are activities which we think are unhelpful and potentially harmful.
QUESTION: Do you know if the State Department regards WikiLeaks as a media organization?
MR. CROWLEY: No. We do not.
QUESTION: And why not?
MR. CROWLEY: WikiLeaks is not a media organization. That is our view.
To their credit, the reporters at the briefing didn't accept this "because we say so" explanation, and continued pressing Crowley on this issue.
QUESTION: From your perspective, what is WikiLeaks? How do you define them, if it is not a media organization, then?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, as the Secretary said earlier this week, it is – one might infer it has many characteristics of some internet sites. Not every internet site you would call a media organization or a news organization.
Beneath Crowley's jumbled logic (if we take Wikileaks to mean the Wikileaks website, after all, it IS an internet site, but this is like saying it has "many characteristics of a newspaper") is a more sinister implication.
If Wikileaks publishing relevant news information via the web does not qualify it as a media organization, what does that say about anyone who starts a blog or political news site? Is some sort of nonexistent "certificate of respectability," the sort that presumably shields the New York Times, Guardian, Le Monde and Der Spiegel from being charged by the U.S., the only differentiating factor here?
Crowley then goes on to make an even more baffling assertion:
MR. CROWLEY: Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist.
...
QUESTION: What is his political objective?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, his – I mean he could be considered a political actor. I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist.
I'm not aware of any instances where Julian Assange specifically said "I am an anarchist." But even so, anarchism is simply a political ideology, just like socialism, neoliberalism, and so on. Saying that someone is "an anarchist, not a journalist" makes about as much sense as saying "Glenn Greenwald is a liberal, not a journalist."
The more general idea that simply having a "particular political objective" disqualifies you from journalistic protections is likewise ridiculous and troubling. Does this mean Daily Kos is also not subject to these protections? The most critical role of journalism in civil life, after all, is to act as a government watchdog. In societies where governments act unjustly and engender resistance, surely journalists WITH "a political objective" play a role of vital importance.
Now to be fair, Crowley is just one of Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretaries of States. There may be others in the U.S. government who are able to more sensibly articulate the government's argument. But to the extent that such thinking exists, one would assume it would be communicated and understood within the highest levels of the State Department, and made available to anyone giving a press conference on the matter.
It seems far more likely that there is no real logic being employed here, but simply an attempt to impose punishment for the imaginary crime of "opposing the U.S. government."