Is Julian Assange a journalist, Peter Greste?

Peter Greste, Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom

Dear Peter

Following on from my previous letters to you regarding Julian Assange.

Do you, in October 2019, stand by your assertion that Julian Assange is not a journalist?

This remains the official position of the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, of which you are Spokesperson. 

Comments you have made this past few months suggest that you may be having second thoughts regarding Assange’s status as a journalist.

On 19^thAugust, Phillip Adams asked you the following question: 

“Do you think the extradition of an Australian publisher from anywhere in the world to the United States for publishing 100 per cent facts—not fake news—sets a dangerous precedent for all Australians, not just journalists but people on the web, social media?”

You responded with:

“I have wrestled with this a lot. What you are referring to, I guess, is a piece I wrote some time ago that suggested I do not consider Julian to be a journalist. I am very concerned about the implications of Julian Assange’s arrest and the extradition on a number of levels. I think there are issues and questions of due process. It is very difficult to imagine how Julian Assange under the current circumstances can get a fair trial, a fair hearing. I am very concerned about the implications of the way that the law is being used for journalism…Yes, I think there are some troubling concerns and I think we do need to be more actively engaged in understanding what those are and supporting Julian in that regard.”

In conversations with friends and others, in the months since your Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece was published, your declaration that Assange is not a journalist inevitably crops up. “Peter Greste says that Assange is not a journalist,”  they say. Given your high profile status as a journalist, your opinion carries weight with the public.  

When will you stop wrestling with the question of whether or not Assange is a journalist? Is the Alliance for Journalist’s Freedom also ‘wrestling’ with this question?

Some clarity on this will assist the Australian public in deciding to either support Assange or turn a blind eye to his fate. As you will be aware, and intimated in response to Phillip Adams’ question, Assange will not, if extradited to the United States, receive a fair trial. An almost certain ‘guilty’ verdict will result in his death in a US prison. 

The stakes are high and the time has come for yourself, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, all Australian journalists and the public to place pressure on the Australian government, which assisted both you and I when we were imprisoned on bogus espionage charges, to likewise assist Julian Assange, whose only crime is that of being a journalist committed to speaking truth to power; of revealing the truth about US war crimes in Iraq.

If you, in your role as journalist, had been given access in 2010 to the Collateral Murder documents  published by Wikileaks, what would you have done with them? Publish and be dammed? I certainly would have. And so would many (most) of my friends and colleagues working in the 4^thEstate. You, I and many others could be in the position Assange is in now if we had made public the Collateral Murder materials. You and I and our colleagues could, in the future,  be facing death in a US prison, for doing nothing more than carrying out our professional responsibilities by speaking truth to power.

Please stop wrestling, Peter, and lend your voice to the growing band of Australians calling on the Australian government to do all in its power to prevent Assange’s extradition to the United States.

cheers

James Ricketson

Response to Sally Neighbour's email

Dear Sally

A feature film of mine screened at the Sydney Film Festival many years ago was voted the 3^rdworst film of the festival. It was  a painful experience for me, but criticism of our work is an integral part of the role we have chosen to play in the 4^thEstate. This was long before it became customary, as it now is, alas,  to label critics as  ‘haters’ and hence dismiss their criticisms rather than address them. 

Your labelling of my email to you as ‘hate mail’ seems to have been made impulsively, as were your “Putin’s bitch” and “Zombie supporter” tweets. Such a label would not bother me too much if it were not now on record in the ABC archives. I know from experience that unless corrected, as a result of a challenge from myself, at some point in the future the ‘hate mail’ epithet could well be used as a weapon against me.  “James, you are on record as having sent hate mail to Sally Neighbour and we have no intention of communicating with you on this matter.” This is how any future criticism I might make of the ABC could be dismissed.

Please, Sally, point out one paragraph, one sentence, one phrase or even one word in my email to you which justifies your ‘hate mail’ epithet. If you cannot do so, please acknowledge in writing that I have not sent you ‘hate mail’.

As far as the 4 Corners Assange programs are concerned, the horse has now bolted and critical feedback is only of value if it assists the ABC in making a truly balanced program about Assange in the future.

If I had been Executive Producer of the two 4 Corners Assange programs and presented with two ‘fine cuts’ of the programs that were put to air, I would have made the following notes and asked the following questions of the director and editor:

Michael Brissenden says in voice over, “We ask the question, is Julian Assange a Hero or a Villain”. Is this the most important question to ask? Could it be that the focus on Assange’s personality, his character, his status as a celebrity and icon, whilst a great hook with which to capture the audience’s attention, runs the risk of deflecting attention away from the more important question: “Should  the British and Australian governments allow Julian Assange to be extradited to the United States to face the very real possibility of dying in prison?”

A few notes about the “Collateral murders’ references to weapons included in the Ep One.

“There’s more of them walking by and one of them has a weapon,”we hear, over a shot of men in the street. “He’s got a weapon too,” we hear a little later. In the absence of any context, the viewer could be forgiven for thinking that these might be dangerous armed men. This is a war, they are the enemy, and perhaps they pose a genuine threat to…someone. Who? The stage has been set. Within the limited context you have provided, killing these men comes across as extreme, callous,  but not necessarily as a war crime. Fair enough. However…

Just before the men are shot from the helicopter, graphics identify two individuals:“Namir about to shoulder camera”and “Saeed talking on the phone”Who are these men, the audience will ponder? Why are they so identified? Why are they not identified in voice over as two Reuters journalists, in danger of being executed by US military personnel who mistake a camera for a gun? 

Daniel Domscheit-Berg says, “All hell breaks loose and it just gets worse from there.” Indeed, it does get worse. Much worse. Why have you chosen not to reveal just how much worse it got? Why have you chosen not to show the two rescuers, clearly unarmed, being murdered in cold blood as they move wounded men into a van containing two children. The children are injured and the decision to take them to a US hospital is abandoned. The soldiers take the children to an Iraqi hospital where, it can be presumed, they will receive a lower standard of medical care. 

On the basis of what you have included audience members could be forgiven that the men in the street were armed combatants and so valid targets for execution. This argument cannot be made for the killing of unarmed rescuers and the wounding of the children. It is a war crime. Why have you left it out? Is it because it raises questions that you don’t want to ask? Questions that don’t fit neatly into the central question laid out in the title? Hero or Villain. Questions like,“Why were the children not provided with the very best medical care the US could provide?”, “Did the children recover from their wounds?”and “Why have none of the perpetrators of this war crime been charged?”  

Was the question ever asked of journalists Scott Shane and Alan Rusbridger: “What are the ramifications of this execution of journalists for other journalists working in combat zones?” If so, I am sure audience members would love to know what their answers were.

A broader question is: “Do you not think the execution of  journalists by the US military, with no charges laid against those guilty of war crime, is worthy of deeper investigation? Of greater importance than the 35 or so minutes devoted to ‘Russiagate’?”

The segue from “Collateral murders” to Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s comment to camera about Assange that, “Everyone wanted to know who this digital disruptor was,”diverts audience attention away from the significance and ramifications of the collateral murders, onto Assange’s personality and celebrity status. Is this intentional? 

In the building of a case that Wikileaks colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections to get Trump elected, in Episode Two, the word ‘alleged’ is not used once? Is this intentional? Is it good journalism to rely, unquestioningly, on US intelligence assessments as evidence of Assange’s guilt?

You have allowed Neera Tandem, Scott Shane and Hillary Clinton to brand Assange as a  Russian agent without presenting any evidence in support these allegations. Do you have supporting evidence? If so, why is it not included? Was Assange given  an opportunity to respond to these allegations? If it was not possible to obtain a response from Assange, given his incarceration in the UK, was Jennifer Robinson given an opportunity to respond on his behalf? If so, I think, in the interests of balance, that you need to include her response.

Inclusion of the references to Assange being a "useful idiot","in bed"with the Russians”,that he is a "tool of the Russian state",and that Julian "had a blind spot when it came to Russia",in the absence of any deeper investigation into the truth or otherwise of such allegations will leave 4 Corners open to accusations of lack of balance; of bias. Please take another look at this.

Of what relevance are the Roger Stone and Randy Cretico stories?

Why are Nils Melzer and his ‘torture report’ not mentioned? Was he invited to participate in the programs?

Why is reference being made to Assange’s phone conversation with Donald Trump Junior, but the fact that Assange had asked for Trump Senior’s Tax Returns left out?

Are there any senior Australian public figures who approached 4 Corners and offered to articulate their change of attitude to Assange for the programs, whose offers were rebuffed?

This is not an exhaustive list of my questions or observations for the editor and director but will suffice. 

If I were to make a documentary about you, Sally, of your investigative journalistic work over the years, and focused on the question: “Sally Neighbour – Hero or Villain”would this be the right or the fair question to use as the starting point for an assessment of your work? With the title alone, be tilting the scales towards ‘villain’? Would such a title be fair? It might not matter if the program were a fair assessment of your work but the parameters established by the title could well impel me to include only that which spoke to the title.

The following is not a hypothetical note for the editor and director, but a question for you.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg refers to Assange’s “Curious eyes never run dry in my experience,”text message as “Really fucked up”,and says to camera, “We were milking the source and this is not something that we should not have been doing; that Julian should not have been doing.”

Have you ever, Sally, during your many years as an investigative journalist, communicated with a source who has given you a lot of useful classified-as-secret information from a whistle-blower that you believed to be in the public interest to reveal? If so, have you ever said to this person, “What more can you tell me?”Or words to that effect. Is this not part and parcel of your job? If I included in my hypothetical documentary, a former ABC colleague of yours saying, “Sally was milking the source and this is not something that she should have been doing, making the fucked up comment about how a curious eye never runs dry.” Would you think that this was good and fair journalism on my part? Good documentary filmmaking?

As far as I can tell (please correct me if I am wrong) the ABC has not reported on the judgment of Judge Koeltl this past week:

JUDGE KOELTL:“If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.  But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers."

Have you any idea why the ABC has remained silent on this important breaking news? Can you not see that by its silence the ABC is in very real danger of appearing biased against Assange, even if this is not the case?

Regardless of what any of us thinks of Assange’s personality, his character and his publishing modus operandi, he has, for more than a decade now, been performing the same journalistic and publishing tasks we all do – those of us working in the 4^thEstate and committed to ‘speaking truth to power’.

I have no desire, as you suggest I could, to “contact the ABC’s department of Audience and Consumer Affairs, which is independent of the News division.” The advent of email and the proliferation of avenues of complaint in every sector of our lives has, sadly, reduced face to face contact between people who have different points of view, leading to unnecessary and fruitless conflict. I would much rather meet with you and chat about all this over a cup of coffee than for either of us to feel that we are on opposing media teams.

cheers

James

Letter from Sally Neighbour, Executive Producer of Assange 4 Corners broadcasts

Dear James, 

I am writing in response to your email earlier today, regarding our two-part program on Julian Assange.

Assange is an extremely polarising figure. This is evidenced by the hate mail – such as yours – that we have received from both sides of the debate since the programs were aired. Those who dislike Assange have accused us of being ‘lapdogs and propagandists’ for Assange. Those, like yourself, who support him have accused us of seeking to destroy him.

Four Corners spent more than three months on these programs, because we believed that the prosecution of Julian Assange is an extremely important story, which warrants very close examination. Our program was not intended as either a hagiography or a hatchet job. It was intended as a meticulously accurate, scrupulously researched and forensically detailed investigation of precisely what Assange is alleged by his accusers to have done. I believe it was that. It also carefully explored the legal and ethical issues surrounding his prosecution, the motivations of the Trump administration, and the dangers to press freedom and the public’s right to know, posed by his prosecution.

Your complaint deals principally with our use of the ‘Collateral Murder’ video, so I will address that in detail.

The first of our two stories opened with the Collateral Murder video. We ran a full two minutes and ten seconds of the video, which you would appreciate – as a documentary-maker yourself – is a very long excerpt to include in a 45-minute program. We aired some of the most horrific sections of the video, including the sections where the US servicemen can be heard deliberately targeting their civilian victims with instructions such as ‘Let’s shoot. Light ‘em all up. Come on, fire. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’, laughing about it, and later commenting ‘Look at those dead bastards’.

The commentary by reporter Michael Brissenden during the airing of the video included: “(The) classified US military footage… revealed a shocking event during the war in Iraq”; and “The callous behaviour of the US troops exposed the brutality of the conflict to the world.” This was followed by interview excerpts outlining the global impact of the release of the footage, including a quote from Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsonn, saying “That video has since of course become iconic as testimony of the Iraq War. It’s like the napalm girl of the Vietnam War. It tells a bigger story than the video.”

Your suggestion that Four Corners ‘censored’ the video to distort the story in a way positive to the US or negative to Assange is both nonsensical and offensive. The sections of the video that we used were chosen by the producer and editor (not myself) to have maximum impact, and – combined with the commentary – to fully convey the horror of the event. I believe they did so. The fact that we didn’t air the sections you referred to is immaterial, and to suggest it reflects an attempt by us to distort the story is bizarre and totally at odds with the reality of what we showed.

You ask in your email why we did not question Hillary Clinton about the Collateral Murder video. Hillary Clinton was not available for an interview with Four Corners for the Assange programs. The excerpts of Hillary Clinton that we used were from an earlier interview in 2017. She was not asked in that interview about the Collateral Murder video because the interview was focused on different topics.

In response to your four questions: Yes, of course we would broadcast evidence of US war crimes if we had it. No, of course we would not censor it in the way you suggest. No, we would not decide not to broadcast it for fear of extradition to the US. In response to your final question: Julian Assange is currently in a high security British prison and not contactable by journalists. We interviewed his Australian lawyer Jen Robinson, his US lawyer Barry Pollack and Wikileaks Editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsonn, to ensure we obtained Julian’s side of the story. 

You refer to my tweets as evidence that I am biassed against Assange and in favour of Clinton. This is false and offensive. I have explained repeatedly that the re-tweet from two years ago was done accidentally, and that as soon as I realised I had done it, I deleted it and apologised. My twitter reference to the ‘Zombie followers’ was done in jest, because I thought that the reference was ludicrous and an indication of the ridiculously polarised debate over Assange. I am surprised that anyone would take it seriously. 

I will not dignify your concluding insults with a reply, as they are rude, ill-informed and offensive. I am accustomed to having to deal with complaints about our programs, as they are frequently controversial and provocative. Thankfully, most of the complaints I have to deal with are not as nasty and personal as yours.

If you are not satisfied with my response, please feel free to contact the ABC’s department of Audience and Consumer Affairs, which is independent of the News division.

Yours sincerely,

Questions for Sally Neighbour re 4 Corners Julian Assange programs

Dear Sally Neighbour

I am what you describe in your tweet as an Assange “Zombie supporter” and this letter an expression of the “madness” you refer to.

I am a filmmaker with 45 years of experience making documentaries. I understand how the raw material of many hours of ‘rushes’ can be edited in accordance with journalistic ethics to reveal the truth (or as close as possible to it) of the subject being explored.

I understand also how filmmakers with a bias, a pre-conceived idea of where the truth lies, or hell-bent on propaganda and character assassination, can manipulate the footage they are working with to achieve their desired result, whilst creating the illusion of ‘balance’. 

I am also an Australian citizen who spent 15 months in a Cambodian prison, falsely charged with having engaged in espionage. Based on the two 4 Corners ‘Assange’ programs you were Executive Producer for I am thankful that the ABC did not apply its investigative skills to informing the Australian public about the reasons for and circumstances surrounding my incarceration.

There are many criticisms that can be made  of the 4 Corners Assange programs and, no doubt, others working in the 4^thEstate with a commitment to truth, accuracy and integrity in journalism, along with members of the viewing public, will write letters of complaint to you and the ABC also. You can dismiss all such criticism as having come from ‘zombie supporters’ if you so choose, but I would suggest that if 4 Corners is to maintain its credibility as an investigative program, the ABC should take note of these criticisms and respond accordingly.

There are many errors of fact, distortion, bias and omission that stand out for me in these two programs but I will address only one of them here, for the time being:

In Part One, “Hero or Villain”, segments of Wikileaks’ 2010 ‘Collateral Murder’ video were included. The most horrific 2^ndpart of it was not. In this excluded footage we see a van driving up to rescue survivors of the airborne attack in which two Reuters journalists, amongst a dozen or so others, were killed. The rescue van has two children in it, visible to the helicopter’s camera. The unarmed rescuers were executed by the US military and the two children injured in this unprovoked attack on them. One US soldier is seen with an injured child in his arms, running from the scene of the carnage.

Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State in 2010 when Wikiieaks published this video, revealing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US military was guilty of a war crime. Why were the following questions not asked of Clinton? Or, if they were asked, why were her answers not included in the program?

(1)  Did the murder of unarmed rescuers and the wounding of two children by the US military constitute a war crime?

(2)   If, on the basis of the audio-visual evidence available it seems as though a war crime was committed, why have no US military personnel been charged?

(3)  Regardless of the legality or illegality of these killings, do you believe that it was in the interest of the public that this footage be published by Wikileaks?

Why was the 2^ndpart of the “Collateral Murders” video not included in your program?  Why did 4 Corners notdelve into the question of why it is that the perpetrators of the ‘collateral murders’ have notbeen charged with a war crime? The question could have been put not only to Hillary Clinton but to others in the 4 Corners program critical of Assange.

Was this editorial omission made because you felt it would embarrass Clinton? Was it because its inclusion would horrify an ABC audience? Learning that the US military fires on unarmed civilian rescuers and children, with the clear intent to kill them and is able to do so with impunity? Or was it that you feared audiences might think to themselves, “Congratulations to Wikileaks and Julian Assange for having brought this war crime to our attention,” and respond with sympathy and understanding to his current plight?

Not showing any of the 2^ndpart of the ‘Collateral Murder’ video amounts to editorial censorship of the kind that 4 Corners practiced in so many ways in its Assange ‘investigation’, whilst at the same time attempting to create the impression of impartiality and balance. 

I have 4 questions for you, for the 4 Corners team and for ABC management vis a vis the “Collateral Murders” video:

(A)If 4 Corners, in July 2019, came into possession of cogent audio-visual evidence that a war crime had been committed by the US military recently, would the ABC broadcast it? 

(B)If the ABC would broadcast it, would the national broadcaster allow staff to censor it by cutting out  those parts of it that did not reflect well on a political party or politician that members of ABC staff were supporters of?

(C)Given the threat that the imprisonment of Julian Assange poses for all of us in the 4^thEstate, and for our democracy, would the ABC decide not to broadcast such a video out of fear that members of its staff might be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges?

(D)Was Julian Assange given an opportunity to respond to the various allegations made about him in accordance with what must surely be a fundamental principle of investigative journalism?

Hero or villain, like him or hate Assange, this last question goes to the heart of what should be of the greatest concern to all journalists working at the ABC. 

In your recent “Zombie follower’’ tweet, along with your “Putin’s bitch” re-tweet a couple of years ago, in your refusal to ask Hillary Clinton tough questions, you have revealed yourself to have a clear bias against Assange and in favour of Hillary Clinton. You should have recused yourself as Executive Producer for these two programs. Indeed, ABC management should have not allowed you to executive produce the programs under the circumstances.

For me, a longtime viewer and fan of 4 Corners (40 or so years), you have besmirched the reputation of one of the most important programs on Australian TV  and damaged the reputation of the ABC at the same time. 

I believe that you should either resign in shame for having executive produced such an ill-researched, poorly-crafted and biased program or, in future, adhere to the investigative journalism standards that have provided 4 Corners with its good reputation worldwide.

best wishes

James Ricketson

FOLLOW UP OPEN LETTER TO PETER GRESTE RE JULIAN ASSANGE

Dear Peter

Following on from my ‘open letter’ to you of 2^ndJuly.

 ‘New Matilda’ recently published the following comment in relation to the Global Conference for Media Freedom held in London last week, which you attended:

Peter Greste backtracked on former denunciations of Julian Assange, noting that the Wikileaks founder is part of an ecosystem of “whistleblowing, accountability and publishing of journalism”, which “we need to be protecting as a whole”. 

Is this statement an accurate description of your current view of Julian Assange’s status as a journalist, editor and publisher? If so, will you, in a follow-up Opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, be amplifying your belief that, as part of the ‘whistleblowing ecosystem’, Assange is in need of ‘protection’?

Your status as a journalist jailed in Egypt, as a Professor of Journalism, as spokesperson for ‘Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and as writer of Opinion pieces such as “Julian Assange is no journalist” (12^thApril 2019) give you enormous power to shape Australian public opinion. Indeed, you have already done so. Over the past few months I have had several conversations with friends who read  your “Julian Assange is no journalist” piece and formed their opinions accordingly. My own experiences have made it possible for me to mount a powerful argument as to why Assange is a journalist but I cannot, as you can, reach a large readership with my counter-arguments.

A public declaration from yourself that Assange is a journalist  and Wikileaks a publisher will help demolish one of the arguments presented by those in the media who present his ‘non-journalist’ status to justify their refusal to support him. Only when the bulk of Australian journalists focus on Assange’s status as a journalist, facing the very real possibility of dying in a US jail, and leave aside questions relating to his character and personality, (including refraining from snide “Putin’s bitch” references) will Australian public opinion swing behind Julian. 

Until there is a change in public opinion, the Australian government – both sides of the political spectrum – will sit on the fence, unwilling to upset our ally, the United States. Only with a change in public opinion will Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese pluck up the courage to say to the UK government, “We request, in the most forceful manner, that you respect Julian Assange’s human and legal rights, the free speech rights that accrue to him as a journalist and publisher, and refuse to extradite him to the United States.”

I look forward to reading your next Opinion piece, Peter.

cheers

James

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WALKLEY’S BOARD - re Julian Assange

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WALKLEY’S BOARD

Dear Clare

On behalf of the Walkely’s Board you have registered a complaint with the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) regarding an incorrect statement I made in my open letter to Peter Greste:

"In response to James Ricketson's open letter
(https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/04/rick-j04.html) the WalkleyFoundation would like to clarify that the 2011 Walkley Award for
Outstanding Contribution to Journalism was awarded to Wikileaks, not to
Julian Assange individually, though the judges acknowledged Assange’s
role as editor in their remarks.It would be appreciated if this could be corrected. Many thanks, Clare Fletcher."

I stand corrected. However, Wikileaks is clearly Julian Assange’s ‘baby’. To distinguish between Assange as editor and Wikileaks’ “Outstanding Contribution to Journalism” strikes me as hair-splitting, especially so as he faces the very real possibility of dying in a US prison as a result of Wikileaks’ “outstanding contribution to journalism,” to quote a Statement released by the Walkley’s Board on 16^thApril 2019:

“In 2011, Wikileaks, with Julian Assange as its editor, received a Walkley Award in Australia for its outstanding contribution to journalism. Walkley judges said Wikileaks applied new technology to “penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup”. One of those many inconvenient truths was the exposure by video of US helicopter attacks in Baghdad that killed 11 civilians including two Reuters journalists…”

The Walkley Board clearly acknowledges that Assange/Wikileaks has played a significant and important journalistic role this past decade and more and is to be congratulated for doing so. However, such praise on the part of the Walkley Board is qualified by:

“Julian Assange’s personality and his more recent actions do not weaken the principle driving the Walkley Foundation’s concerns in this matter: that when he released the original Wikileaks material in 2010 Assange was assisting a whistleblower to reveal information in the public interest.”

I am curious to know why the Walkley Board feel the need to mention “Julian Assange’s personality” in this press release? In what way is his personality relevant to his role as Editor, Publisher or Journalist of Wikileaks? And what ‘recent actions’ of Assange’s are you referring to? 

A smear campaign, replete with innuendo, scuttlebutt and character assassination focusing on his ‘personality’,  has been waged against Assange within significant sections of the media over past 9 years. Perhaps inadvertently, this paragraph in the Walkley Statement adds weight to the argument  that Assange is somehow deserving of his ill treatment at the hands of the UK, US and Australian governments and not worthy of community support as an Australian citizen and award-winning journalist, editor and publisher.

I am happy to amend my original statement regarding the Walkley Award. I would appreciate it if the Walkley Board likewise amended its 16^thApril press release in such a way as to acknowledge that “Julian Assange’s personality” is irrelevant and to exclude references to ‘recent actions’ without specifying what these are and in what way they are relevant.

best wishes

James Ricketson

AN OPEN LETTER TO PETER GRESTE

Dear Peter, 

Do you still stand by your assertion, made in a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece last April, that Julian Assange  “is not a journalist, and WikiLeaks is not a news organisation”? 

Assange has been a member of MEAA for the past 10 years, was awarded a Walkley for the ‘Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism’ in 2011, amongst many other journalism awards. In November 2011 the UK Hight Court described Assange as “…a journalist, well known through his operation of Wikileaks” and the US Army’s Counterintelligence Centre described WikiLeaks as a ‘news organisation’ and Assange as a ‘writer’ and ‘journalist’.

Even if it is still your contention that Assange is not a journalist, do you believe, on the basis of evidence available to you, that Assange, an Australian citizen, should be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges?  

When I was imprisoned in Cambodia, also charged with espionage, you showed your compassion and used your influence as a journalist, who had likewise been charged with espionage and spent 400 days in an Egyptian prison, to alert the Australian public to my plight. You told Fran Kelly:

“You really can’t conceive of that length of time in prison until you actually have to confront it in all its stark reality… The Australian Government insists that it’s a defender of the basic democratic principles in the region, including the rule of law, due process, basic human rights. And if it wants to be taken seriously and with respect then it needs to forcefully stand by those values in cases like James’. I think the Government clearly needs to do more.”

You also said: 

“In Egypt’s case, Australia had very few levers that it could pull. It’s got far more levers…in Cambodia’s case – diplomatic levers, economic levers and so on.”

When I was found guilty of espionage you wrote on twitter:

“Australian film-maker James Ricketson sentenced to six years jail in Cambodia. Outrageous affront to due process, freedom of the press and the rule of law.”

Along with Phillip Adams, Elizabeth Farrelly, John Pilger, Piers Akerman and other journalists who wrote or broadcast in relation to my case, you played an important role in generating public support for me. This, in turn, placed pressure on the Australian government to use all the diplomatic tools available to it to extricate me from prison. The government did eventually step up to the plate and, behind the scenes, make significant diplomatic efforts to help me. Three weeks after I received a 6 year jail sentence I was on a plane back to Australia.

Do you believe that Citizen Julian Assange is any less deserving of intervention on the part of the Morrison government than I was?

Do you believe that the Australian government is doing enough to protect Citizen Julian Assange’s basic human rights?

Do you believe that, as an Australian citizen, he is deserving of a 175 year jail sentence for doing nothing more, on the basis of the evidence available to us all in July 2019, than what a good investigative journalist/publisher does all the time?

Julian Assange turns 48 today. He has been locked up in an Embassy for 7 years – five times longer than you were locked up in Egypt and I in Cambodia Cambodia. We have both experienced what you refer to as the ‘stark reality’ of incarceration. I would not wish the experience on anyone ,and particularly not on a fellow journalist.

Again, Peter, thank you for the journalistic help you provided me in my time of extreme need. Please do the same for Julian Assange –  as both an Australian citizen andas a journalist. Please join with the growing number of journalists worldwide who fear the ramifications, if Assange is extradited, for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the health of democracies such as Australia’s, at a time when President Donald Trump has declared we journalists to be enemies of the people.

cheers

James