It's difficult to decide whether or not we, as journalists, should support Assange for exercising the freedoms of speech and press or condemn him for exposing confidential, critical documents related to our country's security and intelligence. According to the article, both Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, one of the nation's top journalism universities, and the Society of Professional Journalists were unable to come to a conclusion as to whether or not Assange's practices were ethical (or legal, for that matter).
After reading the article, I agreed most with Adler's idea that journalists are hesitant to back Assange not because he exposed government secrets but because of the implications of him doing so. The article says:
Some journalists, while perhaps believing Assange should not be prosecuted, are so disgusted with his approach that they are reluctant to weigh in publicly. Sam Freedman, a journalism professor at Columbia University, did not sign the letter his colleagues circulated because, “I felt the letter did not adequately criticize the recklessness—the disregard for the consequences of human lives—of a massive dump of confidential info.” Freedman says prosecuting Assange would set a dangerous precedent for legitimate journalists. But many think, as Freedman does, that Assange did not exhibit the judiciousness that a journalist must when releasing classified information.As journalists, our role is to provide a check on the government by publishing information in a legally and ethically acceptable manner. While the information that Assange released into digital airwaves certainly shed a shocking light on the inner workings of our government, it put our country at an enormous risk for future attacks. I believe that a journalist's top priority should be the safety and well-being of our nation, and if publishing a story (or, in this case, a set of documents) jeopardizes those priorities on an exponential level, it should not be released to the public.
