In just a minute, I’m going to ask you to think about any news organisation whose content you gratefully consume. I’ll do this for the sake of an argument in support of WikiLeaks, a publisher whose end last week became a “priority” for the US Attorney General. I’ll ask you to consider what you value about the news outlet you favour for, say, two-three minutes. Do that, and receive the prize of my consent; you can fill the comments with all the calumny you will!

No, not yet. Before you race to the bottom to declare that any advocate for WikiLeaks must also be (a) an unwitting agent of the Kremlin and/or (b) the enthusiastic assistant of rapists, I’d really like you to think about why you, an Australian, should instead be writing to your local member in support of Julian Assange, another Australian against whom the US Department of Justice is currently preparing its case for arrest.

Remembering what it is that we like about news and journalism generally, we must ask if WikiLeaks was wrong to publish these documents.

Yes, I understand that this is difficult. The publisher Julian Assange is not easy to love, for several reasons. First, he is wanted for further questioning by Swedish authorities in relation to allegations initially dismissed in 2010—he is not “on rape charges” or any kind of charge, per the frequent declarations of local press. Second, he is clearly a bit of an oddball who spends his many spare hours in a small room in London’s Embassy of Ecuador mauling the history of Western thought—nobody likes an eerily pale wanker, as I know firsthand. Third, during the recent US election, he published a trove of documents known as the Podesta emails which revealed the collusion between and discrete dishonesty of Hillary Clinton’s campaign team and the Democratic National Committee.

There are many, both here and in the US, who hold that the Podesta emails harmed Clinton’s presidential chances and assisted the election of a big bag of circus peanuts sometimes known as Donald. Here’s an viral bucket of wilful delusion in The Guardian which upturns the “analysis” that Assange, in word and deed, had favoured Trump. Obviously, writes Ben Jacobs, Assange is a meanie who just can’t stand strong and courageous persons like Hillary, whose sole crime—save for the fatal failure to propose an exit strategy after her invasion of Libya, her ongoing support for market-friendly policy that created a discontented class ravenous for any sort of political change, her revulsion for welfare etc.—was to be female. That’s why Julian released the emails, right? Misogyny! And THEN he said that Trump was “not a DC insider”, a statement of fact that, according to Jacobs, translates from the original Assange to, “I worship Donald Trump with the full force of my libido and all my naked soul.”

Jacobs’ piece, proficiently trashed over at The Intercept, typifies the moderate mainstream media view of Assange: WikiLeaks has a personal grudge against Clinton/all women; WikiLeaks loves Trump; WikiLeaks is acting, whether consciously or not, on the behalf of Vladimir Putin.

There has been, to date, no proof publicly proffered that the Podesta leak had a Russian source, or that Assange has a partiality for Russia.

The last claim is one even our local left-liberal writers are eager to advance. How do they know that Assange is basically Russian? Well, apparently, Assange once had a show on the Russian state-funded network, RT. Wrestler-turned-Governor Jesse Ventura, Larry King and the Presbyterian socialist Chris Hedges are among those currently employed by RT. The Australian Minskyan economist Steve Keen is a frequent guest on RT, as are those so courageously refusing to budge from Standing Rock. But, the only person or group from RT’s wide political spectrum regularly charged with Russian involvement is its former employee, Assange, whose brief appearance on the network makes him no more an ally of Putin than current broadcasters on our ABC’s international services are advocates for Malcolm Turnbull.

There has been, to date, no proof publicly proffered that the Podesta leak had a Russian source, or that Assange has a partiality for Russia. No. Whatever you say, there has not. This is all speculation, and some guff about the use of a Cyrillic keyboard to hack the emails of a man, John Podesta, who appears to reveal his password as “p@ssw0rd” here and once left his smartphone in a cab, is not proof.

Of course, it may turn out that an agent of the Russian state did hack Podesta’s account and turn the documents over to WikiLeaks. It may even turn out that Assange is not a nice bloke, perhaps even sexist. Let’s pretend that both things are true. Then, let’s consider how these facts change those published by WikiLeaks. The DNC remains just as corrupt and Hillary Clinton remains just as close to Wall St interests. The character of Assange and the identity of his sources do not change what the documents reveal.

Now, I want you to think about your preferred source for news. I want you to scrutinise what moral demands you make of the publisher, the journalists, the integrity of the sources. Let’s say you have fond memories of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, so continue to favour the Washington Post. Did you admire the Watergate revelations before knowing the identity of source, Deep Throat? When you learned that this man was Mark Felt, responsible for undermining the Black Power movement of the early ‘70s, did the esteem in which you held the Woodstein investigation collapse? And, when Jeff Bezos, a business owner who built his fortune on exploitative labour practice, bought the publication, did you dismiss it altogether? Were you troubled when Bezos, once a professed libertarian, became enamoured of Clinton at around the time her State Department made a deal with his company Amazon to launch the product Kindle as a standard e-reader for many citizens of the Global South? Did this profitable act of proprietary imperialism cause you to ask one question about the integrity of the Post, or were you just happy to continue reading its cheerleading for Hillary Clinton, confident that this outlet was a part of the truly free press, while WikiLeaks continued to serve Russia?

Look. By all means enjoy the Post. Enjoy Fairfax publications or continue your curious habit of reading Andrew Bolt. But, still, you cannot rationally permit yourself to believe that these publications are somehow freer from influence than WikiLeaks or more meticulous about the virtue of their sources.

I cannot argue that the release of documents did not harm Clinton’s chances in the election—although I imagine that the neoliberal-led decline of the US middle-class had more influence.

As I have made quite plain, I happen to be very fond of WikiLeaks. It’s a publication I favour. I value the Podesta emails for what they, sans editorial, tell me about the nature of contemporary power. That a Citigroup executive, later to be employed in a trade role by the Obama administration, had his advice taken on cabinet appointments is shocking to me. That the religious position of Bernie Sanders was negatively discussed is not shocking, but appalling nonetheless. That Clinton was handed purportedly spontaneous TV debate questions in advance by a DNC staffer while Sanders had no such advantage just ain’t playing fair. That Wall Street received the personal, and highly paid, assurance from Clinton there was one economic story that she’d tell them and another tailored for voters is, for mine, an unambiguous declaration that the nominee upheld her faith in the now widely discredited doctrine of neoliberalism.

Although many moderate publications—those that many hold are far freer from influence than WikiLeaks—insist that this trove contains traces of nothing spicier than Podesta’s recipe for creamy risotto, I have found the opposite to be true. It is my view that these emails, while not as immediately incriminating as the material that gave us a true picture of the barbarism of the Bush administration during the Iraq War, offer an important picture of power.

I cannot argue, of course, that the release of documents did not harm Clinton’s chances in the election—although I imagine that the neoliberal-led decline of the US middle-class had more influence; in shock news, the liar promising jobs is likely to diminish support from the other liar not promising them. Strangely, moderate mainstream publications do argue that the emails were anodyne, while simultaneously arguing that they managed to decide the election.

But, remembering what it is that we like about news and journalism generally, we must ask if WikiLeaks was wrong to publish these documents. Or, at the very least, wrong enough for founder Julian Assange to be charged for acting like a publisher, thereby imperilling all publishers, even the ones you might like.

I do understand, and even feel, that the idea of HRC as Commander in Chief is more comforting than the reality of that orange vat of chaotic sick. But, I do not understand any argument against publishing.

Like it or not, WikiLeaks is a publisher. Journalists and keen media watchers might not approve of the emerging use of algorithms to publish, they might think that the volume of material is unreasonable. But, heck. Print journalists of the past weren’t terribly keen on the advent of radio. Radio broadcasters looked sideways at TV anchors, and until very recent years, TV didn’t think much of the internet. I even find myself tut-tutting at social media at times, on the precipice of saying, “I just can’t believe they let anyone write anything on Facebook!” or “A tweet isn’t news!” And then I remember that I am getting older, while the means of communications keeps renewing.

I also try to remember that my preferences in press and freedom in press do not always coincide. And then, I remember that freedom for all outranks pleasure for me.

If you can also see this distinction, perhaps you would like to see an Australian publisher returned home, and not turned over to the US Department of Justice.

Free Julian Assange.

THIS ARTICLE WAS PAID FOR WITH THE SUPPORT OF DAILY REVIEW READERS. FIND OUT MORE HERE