For the most part, spies gather information and publish to a small audience. They are, essentially, doing journalism for a specific group and refraining from broader publication of their work.
I cannot remember ever reading the word “journalism” used to refer to the act of providing information to a small, closed audience. Publication is an essential part of journalism, not an afterthought. And nobody says that handing over a report to your superiors constitutes “publishing”.
If I watch a wealthy couple having sex for my enjoyment, I’m a voyeur. If I tell a few friends, I’m a gossip. If I tell it to the absent partner of one of them, I’m a private eye. If I tell it to the readers of the Sun, I’m a journalist.
Wikipedia: “Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience.”
M-W: (a) : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media (b) : the public press (c) : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
I agree that the practice of espionage and [investigative] journalism are pretty much identical when it comes to acquiring information. But what they then do with that information is very different and is, indeed, the very reason why two separate concepts exist in the first place.
So, if you write for a small local paper, you’re not a journalist?
If there’s a qualitative difference, it may be that anyone can access something published by a journalist, if they pay for it. Whereas you can’t buy the video feed from an Army UAV.
But if a spy sells secrets to anyone who’ll pay for them, is he/she a journalist? :)
So, if you write for a small local paper, you’re not a journalist?
More like if it’s an internal paper that only selected employees are allowed to read. A small local paper can still be read by anybody in the world.
But if a spy sells secrets to anyone who’ll pay for them, is he/she a journalist? :)
If it is broadly known that she’s willing to sell those secrets to anyone, AND if she allows the stories to become widespread i.e. everyone can buy the story, not just the highest bidder, then yes, it seems to me that she’s essentially operating a (probably) very expensive bulletin.
If you go to Washington DC, you will find a variety of newsletters with high prices and limited readership on very specialized topics involving impending government regulation. I’ve never heard it claimed that the people researching and publishing such newsletters are not journalists.
Right, so I think you are getting to the crux of the matter: where the money/motivation comes from. The kind of journalist we like gets his money/cred/etc from the audience. If he writes articles that her audience values, he does better. The audience can be broad or narrow, but the important thing is that he’d like to broaden it if she can do so without lowering prices. This model is the most ethical because it puts the audience’s and journalist’s incentives in alignment.
But it’s not the only model. For instance, many journalists get their money/motivation from the message rather than the audience. In the most extreme form, this is advertising/propaganda. Without getting that extreme, a journalist may be attempting as much to get a certain viewpoint out there (Coke is delicious, trade with China is dangerous, whatever) as to benefit her audience. She may well believe what she is saying; this makes such activities more ethical. But yellow or unethical journalism is still journalism.
A specific form of the above is espionage. If you write lots of articles for the NY Times about how important it is to invade Iran, that’s propaganda. If you do so because the Saudi government is paying you to, you’re conducting espionage. The Nazi regime paid a large number of “pacifist” authors in Europe, for instance. It’s the dissemination of information/analysis on behalf of a foreign government, and it is (and was) considered to be espionage just as information-gathering on behalf of a foreign government is espionage.
I am certainly not promoting the prosecution of Assange as a spy, or the prohibition of unethical journalism. My point is that because espionage is a form of journalism, attempts to prevent espionage are always likely to result in the censorship of articles we’d like to see permitted. Likewise, restrictions on propaganda or advertising always ends up inhibiting free speech. We should be weakening rather than strengthening such laws.
I could be wrong as I have little experience with the category, but I am under the impression that they are expected to maintain confidentiality with their clients, in a similar way to lawyers, doctors, priests and psychotherapists.
So if A hires Mr. Bogart to spy on B, and then C comes to Mr. Bogart and tells him “I’m interested in B, and a little bird told me you spied on B for someone”, basic professional ethics would require Bogart to refuse to discuss anything related to A’s case with a random stranger, potentially costing him his licence should he fail to do so (depending on what regulations apply in Bogart’s country).
With Wikileaks we might soon live in a world where the information that spies gather get read by more people than a small, closed audience.
Does that mean that those spies stop being spies?
It’s still not intended to be broadcast beyond that closed audience. Most information of that nature becomes far less useful when your opponent knows that you know.
For the most part, spies gather information and publish to a small audience. They are, essentially, doing journalism for a specific group and refraining from broader publication of their work.
I cannot remember ever reading the word “journalism” used to refer to the act of providing information to a small, closed audience. Publication is an essential part of journalism, not an afterthought. And nobody says that handing over a report to your superiors constitutes “publishing”.
If I watch a wealthy couple having sex for my enjoyment, I’m a voyeur. If I tell a few friends, I’m a gossip. If I tell it to the absent partner of one of them, I’m a private eye. If I tell it to the readers of the Sun, I’m a journalist.
Wikipedia: “Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience.”
M-W: (a) : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media (b) : the public press (c) : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
I agree that the practice of espionage and [investigative] journalism are pretty much identical when it comes to acquiring information. But what they then do with that information is very different and is, indeed, the very reason why two separate concepts exist in the first place.
So, if you write for a small local paper, you’re not a journalist?
If there’s a qualitative difference, it may be that anyone can access something published by a journalist, if they pay for it. Whereas you can’t buy the video feed from an Army UAV.
But if a spy sells secrets to anyone who’ll pay for them, is he/she a journalist? :)
Actually the Army UAV’s publish their video steams unencrypted and make them accessible to a broad public who has a video receiver.
So they’re not spy planes; they’re journalist planes!
More like if it’s an internal paper that only selected employees are allowed to read. A small local paper can still be read by anybody in the world.
If it is broadly known that she’s willing to sell those secrets to anyone, AND if she allows the stories to become widespread i.e. everyone can buy the story, not just the highest bidder, then yes, it seems to me that she’s essentially operating a (probably) very expensive bulletin.
If you go to Washington DC, you will find a variety of newsletters with high prices and limited readership on very specialized topics involving impending government regulation. I’ve never heard it claimed that the people researching and publishing such newsletters are not journalists.
Do you need to fulfill certain requirements, other than money and interest, to be allowed to buy one?
Right, so I think you are getting to the crux of the matter: where the money/motivation comes from. The kind of journalist we like gets his money/cred/etc from the audience. If he writes articles that her audience values, he does better. The audience can be broad or narrow, but the important thing is that he’d like to broaden it if she can do so without lowering prices. This model is the most ethical because it puts the audience’s and journalist’s incentives in alignment.
But it’s not the only model. For instance, many journalists get their money/motivation from the message rather than the audience. In the most extreme form, this is advertising/propaganda. Without getting that extreme, a journalist may be attempting as much to get a certain viewpoint out there (Coke is delicious, trade with China is dangerous, whatever) as to benefit her audience. She may well believe what she is saying; this makes such activities more ethical. But yellow or unethical journalism is still journalism.
A specific form of the above is espionage. If you write lots of articles for the NY Times about how important it is to invade Iran, that’s propaganda. If you do so because the Saudi government is paying you to, you’re conducting espionage. The Nazi regime paid a large number of “pacifist” authors in Europe, for instance. It’s the dissemination of information/analysis on behalf of a foreign government, and it is (and was) considered to be espionage just as information-gathering on behalf of a foreign government is espionage.
I am certainly not promoting the prosecution of Assange as a spy, or the prohibition of unethical journalism. My point is that because espionage is a form of journalism, attempts to prevent espionage are always likely to result in the censorship of articles we’d like to see permitted. Likewise, restrictions on propaganda or advertising always ends up inhibiting free speech. We should be weakening rather than strengthening such laws.
Well, to be pedantic, doesn’t that then include your example above of private eyes?
I could be wrong as I have little experience with the category, but I am under the impression that they are expected to maintain confidentiality with their clients, in a similar way to lawyers, doctors, priests and psychotherapists.
So if A hires Mr. Bogart to spy on B, and then C comes to Mr. Bogart and tells him “I’m interested in B, and a little bird told me you spied on B for someone”, basic professional ethics would require Bogart to refuse to discuss anything related to A’s case with a random stranger, potentially costing him his licence should he fail to do so (depending on what regulations apply in Bogart’s country).
With Wikileaks we might soon live in a world where the information that spies gather get read by more people than a small, closed audience. Does that mean that those spies stop being spies?
If I send a secret report to my boss, and Mr. Smith manages to read it and publishes it on the Times, the journalist is Mr. Smith, not me,
It’s still not intended to be broadcast beyond that closed audience. Most information of that nature becomes far less useful when your opponent knows that you know.