Assange's Publishing, Gershkovich's Spying: US Hypocrisy in Press Freedom Exposed

Punctuated by a geopolitical game of chess, Julian Assange and Evan Gershkovich stand out as a contention between national security and press freedom.

Assange has been embroiled in a legal quagmire for nearly 15 years, fighting extradition to the US on charges of publishing leaked classified information supplied by former intelligence officer Bradley Manning.

Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) journalist, is detained in Russia on charges of espionage—a charge vehemently denied by the WSJ and the US government.

However, Gershkovich’s detainment isn't for no reason; his situation continues to be surrounded by a cloak of suspicion, suggesting there's more to his role as a WSJ foreign correspondent than meets the eye.

In the world of double dealing and intelligence, if negotiations between two agencies, as is the case now with the FSB and CIA, are underway, the discussions are for a specific reason.

The Assange and Gershkovich cases, while different, present a complex culmination of challenges. The US's professed dedication to press freedom, juxtaposed with its actions, lays bare its hypocrisy.

America’s aggressive pursuit of Assange for exposing war crimes contrasts with its defence of Gershkovich—a double standard the Americans seem naively oblivious to.

Assange's legal battle against extradition to the US, where he faces charges under the Espionage Act for publishing classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, has ignited a global debate on the limits of press freedom and the right to publish uncomfortable truths.

The US's attempts to extradite Assange directly attack journalistic freedom, setting a precedent that could endanger investigative journalism forever.

Russia’s arrest of Gershkovich for espionage has been met with a wave of support from the US government and media, asserting his innocence and framing his detention as an unjust attack on press freedom.

It’s a naïve response or a failure to acknowledge or accept Gershkovich was spying. A counter-narrative persists, fuelled by Russia's claim and view of Western journalists' activities in foreign nations, especially those with which the US has strained relations.

This scepticism stems from a history of espionage under the guise of journalism during the Cold War and beyond, suggesting Gershkovich's detainment might not be as unfounded as publicly portrayed.

The Russian government insists its actions are justified, hinting at a belief Gershkovich was involved in activities beyond the scope of journalism—challenging US media claims and calling into question the absolute nature of press freedom when national security is at stake.

The hypocrisy of the US government is astounding, to say the least. Its approach to the Assange and Gershkovich cases highlights a troubling inconsistency.

On one hand, it condemns Russia's detention of Gershkovich as a violation of press freedoms; on the other, it aggressively seeks to prosecute Assange for publishing leaked information.

It not only portrays a double standard but raises questions about the US’s commitment to journalistic freedom and whether it applies uniformly or is selectively invoked based on geopolitics.

Furthermore, the US government's characterisation of Assange as a criminal rather than a journalist, while simultaneously defending Gershkovich's journalistic credentials, is hypocrisy of overwhelming significance.

It also suggests the value placed on press freedom is contingent on an individual's nationality and the source of the leaked information, rather than a principled stance on the right to report and publish.

The assumption throughout the US media that Gershkovich could not possibly be engaged in espionage requires greater scrutiny.

Russia's insistence on national security and its history of dealing decisively with perceived threats suggest it has evidence to support its claims.

While the details of the evidence aren’t public, dismissing the possibility of spying in the reality of international journalism and intelligence gathering isn’t an unrealistic connection.

If Gershkovich's activities did extend beyond conventional journalism, his case represents a challenge to the notion of press freedom as an absolute right.

It invites examining the responsibilities of journalists operating in foreign countries, especially those with adversarial relationships to their home nations, and the intersection of their work with national security.

The Assange and Gershkovich cases are a delicate balance between the democratic principle of press freedom and national security, prompting a reassessment of how democratic societies define and defend journalistic rights while safeguarding their citizens and interests against genuine threats.

Moreover, the predicaments challenge the international community to establish clearer guidelines and safeguards for journalists, ensuring they’re able to do their jobs without becoming unwitting pawns in the espionage games of nations.

What’s needed is a framework distinguishing between legitimate investigative journalism and actions that could be considered spying, respecting the sovereignty and security concerns of the countries within which journalists operate.

The need for such guidelines has never been more important; the blurring of lines between journalism and espionage in an era of digital information and global tensions threaten the foundation of press freedom.

Ensuring journalists are protected and able to report on matters of public interest without fear of retribution is paramount, as is recognizing security threats.

America’s contradictory positions on Assange and Gershkovich are an opportunity for introspection and recalibration of its stance on press freedom and espionage.

Adopting a consistent and principled approach would bolster its credibility globally and reinforce the vital role the media plays.

Assange’s incarceration and the detention of Gershkovich for spying highlight the tenuous intersection of press freedom, national security, and international law and diplomacy.

Safeguarding freedom of the press and ensuring national security is essential for democracies globally, allowing for the protection of citizens and the unfettered flow of information that informs, educates, and empowers societies.