Assange Mocked: Journalism's Integrity Fails

The declining standards in journalism and the stupidity that exists within many quarters of the media globally, never fails to surprise.

It’s been something I’ve been banging on about for years and for obvious reason. And yet, I still find myself dismayed with what’s on offer.

So, it’s not hard to imagine how frustratingly annoyed I became when today I read a piece written by AAP journalists Aaron Sheldrick and Tess Ikonomou. Both shared a byline on a story that, as journalists, they should feel embarrassed to not only have collaborated on but put their names to.

But apportioning Bylines are not in their control. That’s up to the subs desk.

AAP Newswires is an Australian news service that provides real-time, comprehensive coverage of national and international news, business, sports, and entertainment – and you’d think the coverage of Julian Assange’s release would have carried with it greater significance given one of our own was hunted and persecuted by several foreign governments for exposing war crimes which they were involved in. But obviously not.

Instead, the AAP’s Canberra Bureau Chief and his Federal Politics reporter sidekick thought otherwise.

Obviously, pumping out copy as a wire service and feeding it to news outlets around the country, makes them highly qualified to judge Assange and his exposing of the US government for war crimes it has committed, and what it has meant for the principles of transparency, accountability, and the freedom of the press in democratic societies.

The article entitled "Assange seeks Aussie hideaway to embrace freedom" perpetuates a narrative that’s not only misleading but harmful to debate surrounding Assange and his role as a journalist. Sheldrick and Ikonomou refer to Assange as a "convicted criminal" glossing over the critical public service he provided by exposing government misconduct.

Characterising Assange the way they have is an assault on free speech and transparency that he’s championed.

My question is what have these two bright lights done? Not much of note I bet.

Assange's return to Australia isn’t a story of a criminal seeking refuge, but of a journalist and publisher who’s endured years of persecution and physical and psychological torture for revealing uncomfortable truths.

Describing him as a "convicted criminal" fails to recognise the broader context of his actions and the significant public interest in the information WikiLeaks disclosed and the war crimes it exposed.

It’s emphasis on Assange's "guilt" and "convicted criminal" status is particularly troubling. Their framing of Assange ignores the political motivations behind his prosecution and the disproportionate punishment he’s faced.

Sheldrick and Ikonomou’s piece also fails to acknowledge the key role whistleblowers play in holding powerful entities accountable. By focusing on his legal battles rather than the content of his disclosures, the article diverts attention from the systemic issues and abuses of power that WikiLeaks brought to light.

The two’s treatment of Assange’s actions as mere "secret-leaking" trivialises the profound impact of the information released by WikiLeaks. The documents published exposed war crimes, human rights abuses, and the extent of civilian casualties in conflicts such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Information that was undeniably in the public interest, with its release prompting important conversations about government accountability and transparency.

It seems exposing war crimes, human rights abuses, and holding government to account for their criminality aren’t important to Sheldrick and Ikonomou.

These two outstanding journalists of great repute also seek to mock Assange’s wife Stella, and her plea for privacy and space for her family. Assange has endured years of confinement, both self-imposed exile in the Ecuadorian embassy and in Belmarsh’s high-security prison. Fifteen years of psychological persecution has impacted significantly on his health - a fact that both journalists gloss over.

The repeated implication made by Sheldrick and Ikonomou that Assange’s actions endangered lives hasn’t only been extensively debunked, but Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson points out there’s no evidence anyone was physically harmed because of the disclosures.

The documents released by WikiLeaks were redacted so not to put the lives of, and to protect individuals at risk.

The narrative Assange recklessly endangered lives seeks to distract from the truths of what his work exposed. WikiLeaks exposing war crimes committed by the US government have had a lasting impact on global politics and have empowered citizens to demand greater accountability from their governments.

Assange’s work has inspired a new generation of journalists and activists who continue to fight for transparency and justice. The media’s role should be to support these efforts and to ensure that the powerful are held accountable. Not shoot Assange down or try and vilify him.

However, rubbish like the article Sheldrick and Ikonomou have produced, serve to undermine these goals by perpetuating a narrative that criminalises whistleblowing and deters future acts of courage in journalism.

Assange’s contribution to journalism and free speech is unforgettable. His return to Australia should be as a hero and not as a criminal.

His championing the cause of free speech and fearless journalism, has made a significant impact globally, inspiring future generations to pursue truth and uphold democratic principles.

However, I’m not sure the same can be said for Sheldrick and Ikonomou and what they’ve done to advance free speech, the advancement of journalism and exposing war crimes governments are committing and continue to commit.