International Federation of Journalists Condemns United States

[RLENT]

"The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today condemned the political backlash being mounted against the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks and accused the United States of attacking free speech after it put pressure on the website's host server to shut down the site yesterday.

The website's host Amazon.com blocked access to WikiLeaks after United States officials condemned the torrent of revelations about political, business and diplomatic affairs that has given people around the world unprecedented access to detailed information from United States sources, much of it embarrassing to leading public figures.

"It is unacceptable to try to deny people the right to know," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "These revelations may be embarrassing in their detail, but they also expose corruption and double-dealing in public life that is worthy of public scrutiny. The response of the United States is desperate and dangerous because it goes against fundamental principles of free speech and democracy."

The IFJ has taken no position on the justification for the release of hundreds of thousands of internal documents which have made headlines around the world in the last few days, but it has welcomed the decision of WikiLeaks to use respected channels of journalism including Der Spiegel, The Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde and El Pais to filter the information.

"This information is being processed by serious, professional journalists who are well aware of their responsibilities both to the public and to people implicated in these revelations," said White. "It is simply untenable to allege as some people have that lives are being put at risk here. The only casualty here is the culture of secrecy that has for too long drawn a curtain around the unsavory side of public life."

The IFJ is also concerned about the welfare and well-being of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and Bradley Manning, the United States soldier in Iraq who is under arrest and suspected of leaking the information. Both men are the target of a growing political campaign mounted by government officials and right-wing politicians.

Assange has been forced into hiding and is the subject of an international police investigation over allegations concerning sexual offences in Sweden. The IFJ says that calls by right wing commentators for Manning to be executed and that Assange be hunted down as a spy, as demanded by former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, show a mood of intolerance and persecution that is dangerous not just for the two men but for all journalists engaged in investigating public affairs.

"The IFJ and its members support the rights of whistle-blowers and the responsible reporting of information in the public interest," said White. "This over-reaction by politicians and their allies illustrates that they have not understood the historical significance of these events. The people's right to know is not something that can any longer be willfully ignored. They have to adjust to the fact journalists have a duty to report, fairly and accurately and with due respect for the rights of all parties in the public interest."

Link To Original Statement:

IFJ Condemns United States "Desperate and Dangerous" Backlash over WikiLeaks

 

[Turtle]

"The IFJ has taken no position on the justification for the release..."

Until they do, they're being hypocritical.


"how a mood of intolerance and persecution that is dangerous not just for the two men but for all journalists engaged in investigating public affairs."

Yes, you have to be free and open and be tolerant of people who want to get all up in your business and report about it for money.


One of the things we do in this great republic is to elect people to help keep our nation's secrets secret. The IFJ doesn't get to decide what the people have the right to know, nor what is or is not part of the public affairs.

SETEC ASTRONOMY is Utopian wishful thinking.

 

[RLENT]

"The IFJ has taken no position on the justification for the release..."

Until they do, they're being hypocritical.

How so ?

Yes, you have to be free and open and be tolerant of people who want to get all up in your business and report about it for money.

Yup .... I think that's pretty much how The First Amendment is designed to work .... regardless of any monetary aspect that may be involved.

One of the things we do in this great republic is to elect people to help keep our nation's secrets secret.

That's true.

However, I'm more interested in electing people to manage our nations affairs responsibly, and who will provide for transparency in governance and accountability.

The less transparency there is, the accountability there will be.

To that end, I'm quite interested in folks who will make an effort to reduce the rather pervasive cultural tendency (which on occasion borders on the nearly psychotic) on the part of those in government to classify anything and everything they can get their hands on .... often for no legitimate, justifiable reason.

The IFJ doesn't get to decide what the people have the right to know,

They do however get to decide what they publish, within certain fairly broad limits.

nor what is or is not part of the public affairs.

Oh I think that individual journalists (including citizen ones) can pretty much decide what is worthy of their time as far public affairs coverage is concerned, and what is in the public's interest .......

If they fail to fufill their obligation, I'm sure that others will rise to meet the need .... free markets and all .....

 

[LDB]

Turtle, you might as well talk to the wall or your steering wheel.

 

[RLENT]

Turtle, you might as well talk to the wall or your steering wheel.

Why's that ? .... it's not like he's trying to talk to you ......

Unlike yourself, I actually can be persuaded by actual facts and a logical argument ....

 

[Turtle]

How so ?

One of the basic tenets of journalism is that you don't obtain information illegally, and if you do, you can't use it. The charter for the IFC states as much in no uncertain terms.

Yup .... I think that's pretty much how The First Amendment is designed to work .... regardless of any monetary aspect that may be involved.

Not realy. The First Amendment ensures the right to publish, but it does not ensure the right to free and unfettered access to people's business just because you think you should have access to it. It's like the First Amendment guarantees Evangelical Christians the right to proselytize, but it doesn't guarantee them an audience.

However, I'm more interested in electing people to manage our nations affairs responsibly, and who will provide for transparency in governance and accountability.

The less transparency there is, the accountability there will be.

That's true, but that's why we elect representatives to be accountable. There are certainly times when total transparency would not be a good thing.

To that end, I'm quite interested in folks who will make an effort to reduce the rather pervasive cultural tendency (which on occasion borders on the nearly psychotic) on the part of those in government to classify anything and everything they can get their hands on .... often for no legitimate, justifiable reason.

While there are certainly those who will classify anything and everything as a matter of routine, there are also a lot of things that on the surface would seem so innocuous that it should not be classified, but when combined with other seemingly innocuous information can be a problem with the security and safety of the people. There are certainly a lot of cases where it may very well be better to err on the side of caution, lest out enemies be able to put 2 and 2 together. I saw a lot of that first hand where some of the stuff I was looking at was pretty innocuous, and some of the stuff the guy right next to me was likewise innocuous, but combined it was not so innocuous.

They do however get to decide what they publish, within certain fairly broad limits.

No disagreement here.

Oh I think that individual journalists (including citizen ones) can pretty much decide what is worthy of their time as far public affairs coverage is concerned, and what is in the public's interest .......

There are certainly cases where that's true, but by and large it's not. The private thoughts of diplomat's characterizations of foreign leaders and other diplomats is neither in the public's interest nor part of the public affairs. When it comes to exposing lies and corruption, that's something the people have a right to know, but most journalists want to know anything and everything simply because they're prevented from knowing it.

This applies particularly to the IFJ, which has their own agenda. They want free and unfettered access to anything and everything without exception. Many IFJ members act in direct opposition to their own Declaration of Principles of Conduct of Journalists, because getting the story almost always trumps the means to get it. They think that because they are journalists, they should be able to go wherever they want and do whatever they want. They do not officially ascribe to a particular political position, but as an organization they are extraordinarily liberal (they are very ACLU and Amnesty International -esque, and work closely with the UN, often being a conduit for the UN's propaganda, in violation of their own charter) and despite what they say, are hostile to people who don't share their views.

 

[greg334]

SO turtle by the actions of the IFJ, does that mean there is what most of us consider a true free press or is it something that is really an agenda that is driven by power and money?