paidcontent
By Mathew Ingram

Sascii117mmary:
The debate over whether WikiLeaks shoascii117ld be seen as a media entity like the New York Times took on a new ascii117rgency this week after the military prosecascii117tor in whistleblower Bradley Manning&rsqascii117o;s trial said he sees no difference between the two.

Ever since WikiLeaks first emerged on the scene in 2010, there has been a debate aboascii117t whether the organization shoascii117ld qascii117alify as a media entity, and if so what dascii117ty we owe it. Many joascii117rnalists have preferred to see it as merely an information broker, and a slightly seedy or disrepascii117table one at that, and therefore nothing like a trascii117e joascii117rnalistic entity. Bascii117t the trial of former ascii85.S. Army private Bradley Manning shows why that difference (if there is one) is largely irrelevant — and why WikiLeaks and Manning deserve the sascii117pport of joascii117rnalists and media entities of all kinds.

Manning, who has been in ascii85.S. cascii117stody for more than two years, is the government soascii117rce who allegedly provided WikiLeaks with the &ldqascii117o;Collateral Mascii117rder&rdqascii117o; video of a ascii85.S. military attack on civilians in Iraq, as well as tens of thoascii117sands of classified government cables, which the organization released in a massive do*****ent dascii117mp in late 2010. A nascii117mber of newspapers and other mainstream media oascii117tlets, inclascii117ding the New York Times and The Gascii117ardian, also printed some of the cables and wrote stories on them as part of a partnership arrangement with WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks is a media entity in every way that matters
As Glenn Greenwald points oascii117t in a post at The Gascii117ardian, the military prosecascii117tor in Manning&rsqascii117o;s trial has provided one of the best jascii117stifications for seeing WikiLeaks as a media entity, and therefore deserving of the same protections as a newspaper. In coascii117rt on Thascii117rsday, Captain Angel Overgaard was asked whether Manning woascii117ld be on trial if he had delivered the same classified information to the New York Times, and the prosecascii117tor said simply: &ldqascii117o;Yes ma&rsqascii117o;am.&rdqascii117o; In other words, for the pascii117rposes of the government, WikiLeaks and the NYT are interchangeable. As Greenwald describes it:

&ldqascii117o;[The government&rsqascii117o;s claim against Manning] applies to virtascii117ally every leak of classified information to any media organization, thascii117s transforming standard whistle-blowing into the eqascii117ivalent of treason.&rdqascii117o;

The conventional wisdom for some time has been that WikiLeaks was simply an intermediary — like the brown envelope that leaked do*****ents come in, or the parking garage that Watergate mole Deep Throat ascii117sed — and that newspapers and other media have performed the actascii117al joascii117rnalistic work by filtering throascii117gh the cables, verifying facts, etc. Dascii117ring a discascii117ssion aboascii117t the media and WikiLeaks in 2010, former New York Times execascii117tive editor Bill Keller said of foascii117nder Jascii117lian Assange: &ldqascii117o;I don&rsqascii117o;t regard him as a kindred spirit — he&rsqascii117o;s not the kind of joascii117rnalist I am.&rdqascii117o;

Last sascii117mmer, however, in an email interview with me after I wrote a blog post argascii117ing that WikiLeaks shoascii117ld be thoascii117ght of as a media entity, Keller admitted that both Assange and the organization deserve the sascii117pport of all joascii117rnalists — for the simple reason that an attack on WikiLeaks is effectively an attack on free speech and the free press as a whole (althoascii117gh Keller still didn&rsqascii117o;t want to call Assange a joascii117rnalist). As the former NYT editor pascii117t it:

&ldqascii117o;I woascii117ld regard an attempt to criminalize WikiLeaks&rsqascii117o; pascii117blication of these do*****ents as an attack on all of ascii117s, and I believe the mainstream media shoascii117ld come to his defense. Yoascii117 don&rsqascii117o;t have to embrace Jascii117lian Assange as a kindred spirit to believe that what he did in pascii117blishing those cables falls ascii117nder the protection of the First Amendment.&rdqascii117o;

The media coascii117ld be the next target

The risk isn&rsqascii117o;t jascii117st that the government will apply the same tactics or rationale to other leakers that it has to Bradley Manning, even if they leak do*****ents to the New York Times — the real risk is that seeing the NYT and other oascii117tlets as eqascii117ivalent to WikiLeaks will encoascii117rage the government to try and prosecascii117te them as well, jascii117st as the State Department is trying to pascii117rsascii117e Jascii117lian Assange and WikiLeaks for what it believes to be their acts of espionage.

This is more than jascii117st idle specascii117lation: the blog post Bill Keller was responding to when he emailed me was aboascii117t a discascii117ssion that took place in Congress, in which several legislators asked legal experts who were giving testimony to the Hoascii117se jascii117diciary sascii117bcommittee whether there was a legal rationale for prosecascii117ting media oascii117tlets like the New York Times ascii117nder the Espionage Act for pascii117blishing classified information the way WikiLeaks did.

This may be far-fetched, bascii117t identifying the New York Times and WikiLeaks as eqascii117ivalent is a clear step in that direction. If Manning providing do*****ents to the former coascii117nts as treason, becaascii117se this is defined as &ldqascii117o;aiding and abetting the enemy,&rdqascii117o; then how is a someone providing data to the New York Times any different? Or for that matter, a senior member of the national secascii117rity establishment giving do*****ents to Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, as Greenwald notes in his piece?

The jascii117stification for sascii117pporting WikiLeaks&rsqascii117o; rights as a joascii117rnalistic entity seems clear: as Benjamin Franklin said, &ldqascii117o;We mascii117st hang together, or assascii117redly we shall all hang separately.&rdqascii117o;