Alexander Hamilton - James Madison - Thomas Paine

[libertypirate]

These famous fore father dudes are no longer considered journalist types because they had 'political objectives'. According to PJ Crowley at the state department.

This in sports would be compared to something that looked like a monkey boinking a football.

You can add Media Matters and The National Security Archive to that list because open government is their political objective too.

Will the Department of State come out and say that FOX views is not a journalist organization because they have clear political objective.

In summary Crowley can't say that our government is against WikiLeaks actual political objective without full on credibility implosion. So he tap dances the point, playing stupid to the open government objective and tells the stenographers in the room to have WikiLeaks explain their open government objective.

Excerpts of the Transcript:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/12/152291.htm


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.

... EDITED OFF TOPIC ...

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. We’re focused on WikiLeaks’s behavior, and I have had personally conversations with media outlets that are reporting on this, and we have had the opportunity to express our specific concerns about intelligence sources and methods and other interests that could put real lives at risk.

Mr. Assange, in a letter to our Ambassador in the United Kingdom over the weekend, after documents had been released to news organizations, made what we thought was a halfhearted gesture to have some sort of conversation, but that was after he released the documents and after he knew that they were going to emerge publicly. So I think there’s been a very different approach. And 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?

QUESTION: The same letter --

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

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.

QUESTION: So his objective is to sow chaos, you mean?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, you all come here prepared to objectively report the activities of the United States Government. I think that Mr. Assange doesn’t meet that particular standard.

QUESTION: But just so I understand, P.J., what – I mean you just said the – that you thought he was --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, but I mean – let me – he’s not a journalist. He’s not a whistleblower. And there – he is a political actor. He has a political agenda. He is trying to undermine the international system of -- that enables us to cooperate and collaborate with other governments and to work in multilateral settings and on a bilateral basis to help solve regional and international issues.

What he’s doing is damaging to our efforts and the efforts of other governments. They are putting at risk our national interest and the interests of other governments around the world. He is not an objective observer of anything. He is an active player. He has an agenda. He’s trying to pursue that agenda, and I don’t think he can – he can’t qualify as either a journalist on the one hand or a whistleblower on the other.

QUESTION: Sorry. What is that agenda, that political agenda? Can you be more --

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll leave it for Mr. Assange to define his agenda. He has been interviewed by some of your news organizations. He has the ability to talk for himself. But you asked -- I was asked a specific question, “Do we consider him a journalist?” The answer is no.




Alexander Hamilton - James Madison
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Thomas Paine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

National Security Archive
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Media Matters
http://mediamatters.org/

[JDPriestly]

1. The strange thing is that Wikileaks pretty much just releases the

documents. I don't think people are paying attention to whatever political ideas they might have. They seem to be mostly for full disclosure, First Amendment rights. Most of us are just reading the summaries in the NY Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel.

I can understand that the State Department is angry, but their point of view is probably indefensible.

[baldguy]

2. So, if you don't like the news they distribute - they're not journalists anymore?

At one time or another, that standard could apply to ANY news organization.

[Iterate]

3. I suppose if all political objective are ruled out,

that leaves only the amoral and inherently self-interested financial interests that are allowed to play in the "journalist's" sandbox. Except that making "no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" means that no law, and numbnuts doesn't get to decide, doesn't get to define, doesn't get to restrict what gets printed or talked about. He can go fuck himself, and tell him I said so.

The problem with the definition of speech vs. espionage has come not from a too broad definition of speech, but from petty tyrants who wish such complete control that any words of irreverence or descriptions of their actions are considered treason.

[Volaris]

4. uuummmmm....I have a problem with THIS in particular...

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, you all come here prepared to objectively report the activities of the United States Government.
Translates To: ("you know, the shit WE WANT you to print")

I think that Mr. Assange doesn’t meet that particular standard.
Translates To: ("because he is OBJECTIVELY offering up for public scrutiny everything he has, and allowing the Public to decide what is worth printing and what is not.)

So Far, what I have seen amounts to little more than a Diplomatic (albeit embarrassing) gossip column (others can disagree).
But if they think that Mr. Assange has shit on the big banks, they will do everything they can to kill this as quickly and definitively as possible. If that banking info is as bad as I think it could be, I don't think our Govt. is ready for the populist rage-storm thats headed their way. And I think the Govt. knows it.
thats my 2 cents