• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should WikiLeaks be considered part of the Press

Does WikiLeaks Qualify as "press"?

  • Total voters
    48
Zyphlin said:
The issue with this Catz is I believe the term "publication" and how broad you want to make it.

If an online site is considered a publication, then based on what you said "Debate Politics" is part of "The Press". Its something that's put forward that acts as a vehicle for the dissimination of opinion and information.

Does that make us all journalists?
Click to expand...

The supreme court, in that decision, defined "the press" in the broadest possible sense. If you read the case, it was about a woman disseminating brochures about her religious beliefs. In no way would printed brochures meet the standard of "press" as discussed in this thread, but supreme court determined that they were, in fact, covered.

If you read Chief Justice Hughes' opinion, you'll see that. It's hard for me to believe, given that standard, that Wikileaks would NOT be covered as "the press."

As far as DP, I don't know if we would be covered in that capacity, since DP isn't set up as a source of news/information, but it would almost certainly be covered under the first amendment in terms of free expression of speech.

So...I don't think you're on the right side of interpreting the bill of rights here. However, feel free to link read the decision I linked, and let me know what you think.
 
MaggieD said:
I think we're so busy being mad at Wiki that we fail to see the bigger picture. Our government completely FAILED. Who is being taken to task for that truth? The usual answer....nobody.
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner here. Sloppy information protocols lead to this leak in the first place. If we'd covered our asses, as a country, our butt wouldn't be flapping in the breeze right now.

It's okay to be angry. It ISN'T okay to use that anger as an excuse for undermining the fundamental principles of liberty in our society.

We can't ever think about these issues in the short term, y'all. We have to think about what the longterm ramifications would be. And the press in the U.S. has already been significantly stifled in its capacity as watchdog on the government, through many methods.

Think about the reaction to Rolling Stone magazine when they did the story on Stanley McChrystal. That was the press functioning---as it should. But there was outrage from many quarters because the military has gotten used to a friendly, complacent media that sucks up in exchange for access.

THAT IS NOT HOW THE PRESS SHOULD FUNCTION.

If our press were working as it should be in this country, Wikileaks would not have a function in exposing our secrets. But they aren't.

Who on this thread can even remotely suggest that Bush/Obama were/are held accountable by the press? Hell no, they aren't.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner here. Sloppy information protocols lead to this leak in the first place. If we'd covered our asses, as a country, our butt wouldn't be flapping in the breeze right now.

It's okay to be angry. It ISN'T okay to use that anger as an excuse for undermining the fundamental principles of liberty in our society.

We can't ever think about these issues in the short term, y'all. We have to think about what the longterm ramifications would be. And the press in the U.S. has already been significantly stifled in its capacity as watchdog on the government, through many methods.

Think about the reaction to Rolling Stone magazine when they did the story on Stanley McChrystal. That was the press functioning---as it should. But there was outrage from many quarters because the military has gotten used to a friendly, complacent media that sucks up in exchange for access.

THAT IS NOT HOW THE PRESS SHOULD FUNCTION.

If our press were working as it should be in this country, Wikileaks would not have a function in exposing our secrets. But they aren't.

Who on this thread can even remotely suggest that Bush/Obama were/are held accountable by the press? Hell no, they aren't.
Click to expand...

Even when, for example, MSNBC's evening crew went after Bush for accountability, it was riddled with half-truths and spin; when FNC goes after Obama, it's lies and innuendo. My point being that even when they are seeming to hold one accountable, they do it poorly. The best I've seen is the evening MSNBC crew when they go after Obama, then it seems it's mostly truth.
 
Summerwind said:
Even when, for example, MSNBC's evening crew went after Bush for accountability, it was riddled with half-truths and spin; when FNC goes after Obama, it's lies and innuendo. My point being that even when they are seeming to hold one accountable, they do it poorly. The best I've seen is the evening MSNBC crew when they go after Obama, then it seems it's mostly truth.
Click to expand...

I've seen John Stewart do the best job of any media outlet at actually holding politicians, and other media outlets, accountable.

AND HE IS A DAMN COMEDIAN.

That should tell us that our press is broken.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I've seen John Stewart do the best job of any media outlet at actually holding politicians, and other media outlets, accountable.

AND HE IS A DAMN COMEDIAN.

That should tell us that our press is broken.
Click to expand...
I like Jon, he's not a news repeater like all the others who claim to be reporters.

Pointing out absurdities is a good way to get the news out there.

People complain that the news media is a joke, why not a jokester as a news reporter?
 
Wait! We are supposed to consider some radical socialist from another country for protection under out constitutional guarantees. I think not. I bet there is no-one associated with Weaki anything with any journalistic training, character or ethics. I don't know this and don't really care. They are not a U.S. entity and therefore if they do what they are doing it is simply espionage. Also, these documents are the property of our government. They are not public domain. Some are classified, all are sensitive. I've been responsible for classified material. There are criminal penalties for what they have done whether against a government or a corporation. We should go after Assange and most of his cohorts on that basis. Notwithstanding that, they should be designated as terrorists and dealt with under that basis...no fly, no anything.
 
Define "press".
I think at one time it was more honorable than it is today.
IMO, then, I's say NO; its no better that the graffiti and writing on bathroom walls.
And, from what little I have seen/heard, this whole thing is over-blown.
 
LowRevs said:
Wait! We are supposed to consider some radical socialist from another country for protection under out constitutional guarantees. I think not. I bet there is no-one associated with Weaki anything with any journalistic training, character or ethics. I don't know this and don't really care. They are not a U.S. entity and therefore if they do what they are doing it is simply espionage. Also, these documents are the property of our government. They are not public domain. Some are classified, all are sensitive. I've been responsible for classified material. There are criminal penalties for what they have done whether against a government or a corporation. We should go after Assange and most of his cohorts on that basis. Notwithstanding that, they should be designated as terrorists and dealt with under that basis...no fly, no anything.
Click to expand...

In other words you don't care about a persons rights. You just care about revenge. Good to know.

The thing about our Constitution is that it was based on the idea that EVERYONE has certain rights that should not be abridged. Not just US citizens.
 
Wikileaks is the press inasmuch as they perform a function largely abdicated by the media.
 
Wikileaks part of the press? Pfft!!!!! They're an enemy of the United States and must be destroyed, just like any other petty terrorist.
 
MegaRepublican said:
Wikileaks part of the press? Pfft!!!!! They're an enemy of the United States and must be destroyed, just like any other petty terrorist.
Click to expand...
I think you are confused...

I may not condone the actions of Wikileaks, but I fail to see how they could be considered a terrorist organization...

Unless you consider releasing classified documents obtained from an inside source terrorism?
 
The Mark said:
I think you are confused...

I may not condone the actions of Wikileaks, but I fail to see how they could be considered a terrorist organization...

Unless you consider releasing classified documents obtained from an inside source terrorism?
Click to expand...

They are supporting the terrorists.

The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
 
MegaRepublican said:
They are supporting the terrorists.
Click to expand...
What proof of this do you have? Unless you are considering your second statement proof?

MegaRepublican said:
The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
Click to expand...
What proof of this do you have?

Some of the info they released might possibly have endangered some people, US soldiers among them - but that's only a hypothetical, as far as I am aware.

To my knowledge, no one has been harmed as a result of the Wikileaks releases.

Please expand on your reasoning.
 
MegaRepublican said:
They are supporting the terrorists.

The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
Click to expand...

First I have heard of that, and I am a news junky....got links?
 
MegaRepublican said:
They are supporting the terrorists.

The information released is putting American soldiers lives at risk, how could this not be considered a terrorist action?
Click to expand...

I'm curious then if you think our gov't and our armed services are terrorists, because they are the primary reason that our soldiers are at risk since they are the ones who sent them there in the first place? Seriously, your argument here is way too thin. Perhaps we should take it a step further back and determine the soldiers themselves are terrorists to themselves because they volunteered to go to war. F'in' ridiculous.
 
No. I thought the argument would be whether or not they deserve whistleblower status (which I don't think they, or those connected should be allowed those protections).
 
Fiddytree said:
No. I thought the argument would be whether or not they deserve whistleblower status (which I don't think they, or those connected should be allowed those protections).
Click to expand...

Wikileaks is a publisher, not a whistleblower.
 
We need more whistleblowers...any action that any govt takes that is against its own people should be reported.
Lying to the public is rarely in the best interest of the nation...

I would also like to see rewards offered to the lower levels of management to rat out the upper management of publicly traded companies.
 
I don't think so. It's purpose is far too specific and targeted.

Basically, it's an online clearinghouse for disseminating stolen/classified US government communications.
 
Tashah said:
I don't think so. It's purpose is far too specific and targeted.

Basically, it's an online clearinghouse for disseminating stolen/classified US government communications.
Click to expand...

Why should it matter if it is targeted? Would it matter if it was considered a news agency if it just targeted celebrities?
 
American government doesn't like Wikileaks because they're embarrassing them. Think they'd care if this stuff was coming out about our foes (only)? The problem is not Julian Assange, the problem is our interventionist foreign policy. If we didn't participate in these embarrassing policies, there would be nothing to expose.
 
Tashah said:
I don't think so. It's purpose is far too specific and targeted.

Basically, it's an online clearinghouse for disseminating stolen/classified US government communications.
Click to expand...

America likes to feel it is special, but is only one amongst at least 13 countries whose information has been leaked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom