On Tuesday night, a Salt Lake City-based TV news station aired a segment about MormonLeaks, “The men of MormonLeaks — Why they do it and what they’re after.” Both Ryan McKnight and Ethan Dodge were interviewed for the piece, as was a BYU journalism professor. During the segment, a point came up that reminded me of a conversation I had a couple weeks ago. McKnight adamantly declared himself a journalist, but recognized there are those that feel otherwise. I happen to be one of those, and I’m interested to hear the thoughts of the Wheat and Tares community.
In an extended interview posted after the segment aired, McKnight explained,
[11:59] Look, as far as, you know, what percentage we meet up to the traditional definition of journalism, I have no idea. I’ve never attempted to sort of analyze, you know, how closely we fit sort of that traditional definition. But I would say that–I would remind people that the word journalist to me is a very broad term, right? When people hear journalist they think reporter, like yourself, or they think like a newspaper reporter, like Peggy Stack or something like that, which are obvious journalists. But I think that there’s other kinds of journalists out there, and there’s journalists that fill different types of roles. And we call ourselves journalists, we claim to be, you know, we put a stake in the sand and call ourselves journalists. And what we do is we curate documents that have public interest, okay? And, you know, that is a service within the world of journalism.
So McKnight pretty much lays out the problem. There is a “traditional” definition of journalism, and then there’s the definition of journalism he’s using, which is something else.
MormonLeaks is journalism
The advent of the internet has allowed the public to access and distribute news directly, outside the normal filters of traditional journalism. In the past several decades, individuals and independent organizations have taken on roles previously exclusive to professional journalists. A prime example is the Drudge Report, which apparently began in the 1990s as an email-newsletter gossip column by the manager of a gift shop, but gained in popularity when it began to break major news stories before traditional news outlets. People have attempted to describe this type of journalism in many ways, one being citizen journalism which has a fairly broad definition.
Citizen journalism refers to the reporting of news events by members of the public using the Internet to spread the information. Citizen journalism can be a simple reporting of facts and news that is largely ignored by large media companies. It is easily spread through personal websites, blogs, microblogs, social media and so on. Some types of citizen journalism also act as a check on the reporting of larger news outlets by providing alternative analysis.
Another label is participatory journalism, which plays off the idea of “audience participation.” The problem? It’s unclear where to draw the line. Is this blog post citizen journalism? Is someone uploading their personal video of a political rally to social media citizen journalism? Are discussions on Reddit citizen journalism? There could be legitimate cases for each. But when we start getting such a broad definition, self-identifying as a “citizen journalist” begins to lose significance.
Another sticky point is that MormonLeaks isn’t really reporting news. The MormonLeaks website says, “The organization provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents for use by professional and citizen journalists for starting and expanding news reporting, public commentary, and criticism related to Mormonism.” According to that description, the site is providing source material so other people can comb through the raw data and report on noteworthy bits. As their lawyer stated, they are a “journalistic resource”–a useful trove of potentially newsworthy information waiting for journalists to mine. So, if the site MormonLeaks isn’t even claiming to be journalism, it must not be journalism, right? Well…
MormonLeaks was modeled after WikiLeaks, and there has been considerable debate as to whether WikiLeaks is considered journalism. A 2011 article from the Washington Post summarized the problem,
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, wrote in a new Times Magazine articl[e] that, in working with Assange to publish revelations from WikiLeaks’ cache of documents, he always considered him a source, not a collaborator – or a journalist. But there is no clear definition of the terms “journalist” or “journalism.” The best we have comes from laws and proposed legislation which protect reporters from being forced to divulge confidential sources in court. In crafting those shield laws, legislators have had to grapple with the nebulousness of the profession to determine who and what must be protected, and why.
Based on the wording of many of these statutes, Assange fits the definition of a journalist, and what WikiLeaks does qualifies as journalism.
In fact, Julian Assange has been awarded honors reserved for journalists. In 2011 he won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism. An article from The Guardian explained,
The annual prize is awarded to a journalist “whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or ‘official drivel’, as Martha Gellhorn called it”.
Okay, so if we’ve just established that WikiLeaks falls under a legal definition of journalism, and if the founder of WikiLeaks is considered by many to be at least a type of a journalist, what’s my problem calling MormonLeaks journalism?
MormonLeaks is NOT journalism
In the interview excerpt above, McKnight mentioned a “traditional” definition of journalism. When I was taught journalism it was this more traditional version, what is usually associated with the journalism profession. For example, if we were talking Watergate, MormonLeaks would be equivalent to Deep Throat, NOT Woodward and Bernstein.
See, back in high school, I had an incredible journalism teacher. Other people thought she was awesome as well, which is why her death last year inspired a unique tribute from the The Salt Lake Tribune. Many professional journalists, her former students, talked about her influence in their lives. One was Fred Kempe who has worked as a foreign correspondent and bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. He summed it up nicely, “She mentored and inspired countless students with her kind soul, her demanding standards and her deep belief that great journalism lay at the heart of a free America.” Because of that teacher, my view of journalism is inexorably linked with certain standards, and that’s why I have such difficulty calling MormonLeaks journalism.
My issue is that I expect real journalists to adhere to a fairly standard code of ethics, like the one published by the Society for Professional Journalists. (In the TV interviews, the BYU journalism professor was referencing that code of ethics to make a similar point). As a matter of policy, MormonLeaks ignores certain types of journalistic standards.
- MormonLeaks does not “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” If MormonLeaks contacts individuals named in their leaks, they aren’t telling anyone about it, and they certainly aren’t publishing responses. That’s a job for someone else. For that matter, MormonLeaks rarely publishes comment from anybody — usually just the leaked document itself and their description. Their entire modus operandi is to sit and wait for people to hand them X and then turn around and pass X verbatim to the public. That’s their policy, little to no editorializing. And we have to take it on faith that their data is legitimate because, as a matter of policy, they will never provide information on how they’ve verified the information (like who they’ve consulted and their qualifications). For MormonLeaks, this is a matter of protecting people.
- MormonLeaks does not “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.” The point of MormonLeaks is transparency–what people have the right to know, not what they need or even want to know. That’s why they have so many leaked documents that never make the news. If a document sheds light on the inner workings of the institutional church, it has met their publishing criteria. According to this policy, the information doesn’t have to be interesting or newsworthy in any way.
- MormonLeaks does not “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.” When MormonLeaks announces a leak on social media, within the first few comments you’ll inevitably get, “Hey, can someone give me the TL:DR?” This is because their policy to limit “editorializing” often leads to disturbingly opaque press releases. Remember the MTC President rape case? The headline of the press release was, “MormonLeaks™ Releases Audio of Former Mormon Mission President Admitting to Inappropriate Interactions with Women.” Was this accurate? Yes. Did it tell people what they had a right to know? Yes (a guy is on record saying he did bad stuff when he was a church leader). Is it a gross oversimplification of the audio recording? Absolutely. See, you needed to click on the link and read the fine print to discover we’re about to listen to a woman confront a man who allegedly raped her.
MormonLeaks has been and will likely continue to be a valuable resource. They have already prompted useful public conversations several times within Mormonism. But please, please don’t ask me to call them journalists.
The verdict?
It seems a person’s opinion on whether MormonLeaks is journalism depends heavily on the definition they use. So what does the Wheat and Tares community think? How do you define journalism, and does MormonLeaks meet that criteria?
Wheat & Tares 
Well done on the post. But I’m bemused at the energy. It seems like “real” journalists care about the label, but I don’t know that anybody else does. My take is that MormonLeaks is journalism for law but not ethics, and that neither proposition is particularly controversial.
I like this posting because it’s contents seems relevant and contemporary; it is thoughtful and requires me to think about what you’ve written, which are good things. My cursory, non-journalistic and impromptu response: It seems to me, like Christian said, like typical labeling, Mormon and otherwise. I have the gospel, priesthood, revelation, etc., but you don’t. I meet all the important criterion. I’m a journalist but you’re not. You don’t act like we think you should.
I’m excited to see what those of you with more chops than I think, if you dare think at all.
I have a relative who worked as a journalist in the 60s-90s. He tells stories about the slow death of investigative journalism toward the end of his career. He says that it happened because the cost of investigation journalism became to high. Very few organizations could afford that high cost (keeping in mind that the internet has been hard on traditional news outlets). I see the WikiLeaks movement as filling in this hole. Whether or not it is true journalism, I don’t feel qualified to say.
I’d categorise it as a resource, an archive, not journalism.
“My issue is that I expect real journalists to adhere to a fairly standard code of ethics, like the one published by the Society for Professional Journalists. ”
That resonates a lot for me.
It’s an interesting and timely debate. These lines have also become blurred as print publications have become too expensive (due to “free” content online) to continue to employee a large staff of writers in a location. I remember feeling somewhat shocked to discover that several of the large US papers a few years ago were using a story from a “journalist” in India that got into the AP and she was just a blogger who happened to be in the right place at the right time. It’s the only way for papers to compete anymore. They can’t afford a large global staff, so instead they rely on these amateur on-the-ground reporters. This is how the internet has changed what we consider to be journalism. I’ve also been in the odd position of discovering that something I wrote on a blog post was cited as if I were a journalist in someone’s academic presentation that I found on line (nothing important, mind you).
Having said all that, I tend to think that MormonLeaks (and Wikileaks) are sources rather than journalists, but that as sources they should be afforded the same legal protections offered to journalists. Whether it’s the fruit or the tree, it should be protected. I agree more or less with Mary Ann that the distinction between a source and a journalist is that a journalist provides context and does the work of “sense-making” (a business term used for a function executives often do for staff). A source simply brings material to light, making things public that might not otherwise be, without sifting through the material to create stories. The journalists do that.
Whether or not it falls into some iron clad definition of journalism it is useful to get information about the operations of the church. It’s sad that it doesn’t come from the church. It’s unfortunate that no other sources with established journalistic credentials are looking into these matters so that we can get an idea how reliable the Mormon Leaks info is. But, until the church is willing to be transparent, I am grateful to find out what wrongs need to be righted and what vulnerabilities need to be addressed.
I know they’re going after the toxic and necrotic aspects of the church and that will do some immediate damage but, in the end, I think it will be better for everyone concerned to have this stuff aired out, resolved and more constructive approaches initiated. I’m sure that’s what Heavenly Father would want too. So, journalism or not, hooray for someone who lets some sunshine in there!
This is a lot of fuss about nomenclature. Is what they’re doing “journalism” in the traditional sense? Probably not. I’d call them more of a watchdog group. I definitely dislike some of their methods. But do they bring information to the public eye? Definitely.
As a side note, I find the complaint about their “disturbingly opaque” headlines to be a little ridiculous. Trust me, if their headline had been “MTC President Admits on Tape to Raping a Missionary,” the entire Bloggernacle would be up in arms about the misleading title.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts and comments.
Thomaskinrade, as far as why I mentioned the headline is because it illustrates the different aims of MormonLeaks versus traditional journalism. For MormonLeaks, their justification for posting was because the MTC President admitted to getting “frisky” with a sister missionary. So that’s all they put in the headline. Bishop never admitted the rape. But what was the most newsworthy element? The rape claim – *that’s* what people were interested in. This caused problems because the MormonLeaks headline said Bishop admitted to inappropriate conduct and people were focusing on the rape claim, so many people got the mistaken impression that the “inappropriate” conduct Bishop admitted to was the rape itself. I can’t tell you how many times I had to correct people when they said MormonLeaks posted it because Bishop admitted to rape on that recording. A journalist would have focused the headline on the most newsworthy element and ensured it was labelled an accusation, not admission.
Since the United States revoked the Fairness Doctrine has in 1987, broadcast journalism as we knew it has died. Today, all or most broadcast journalists are entertainers chasing after ratings or social justice warriors fighting for a cause. Many print journalists are, too.
From Wikipedia: “The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC’s view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987…
I’m with Chritiankimbal on this one. I’m not a journalist, and I really don’t care if these guys want to call themselves journalist or not. It dosn’t change the content of their website.
Now if they start calling themselves engineers is where I draw the line!
I didn’t know Julian Assange was considered a journalist. That seems strange to me.
Leaker of secrets seems a more apt title, not journalist for either of these men.
Bishop Bill, who gets to call themselves an engineer is a sore point on this side of the English speaking Atlantic as well. My husband and I both having engineering degrees and our kids following suit, it comes up fairly regularly. Now if only it were a protected title as it is in Germany for example….
Journalism was my major in undergraduate. I actually took a class from that particular professor. He (and the class) were great! I lean more Mary Ann’s way. Journalism was something that was a craft for me for two short years. It took skill, required ethical reasoning. MormonLeaks reminds me of the Incredible Hulk. Certainly some good has come from what they do, but sometimes when the Hulk and/or MormonLeaks SMASH there is some unnecessary collateral damage. For example, when they leaked the incident of Francis Bernard (he was being visited by the police because he and his friends were being noisy and drinking.) Bernard had already been suspended for the whole football season but no one knew why. MormonLeaks released video of a drunk Francis Bernard arguing with police, and then threatening the anonymous third party who had recorded the incident. MormonLeaks justified the decision to help “discussion about the honor code.” In reality, that information will follow Bernard for the rest of his life anytime his potential employer googles his name. The story has generated far less discussion about the honor code than the Pulitzer Prize winning stories the SLTrib did about the honor code and sexual assault. One held the institution accountable while protecting the privacy and dignity of the innocent. MormonLeaks hurt a young kid without putting a dent in the institution. Again, this doesn’t mean all their work has been bad. Joseph Bishop, finding out GA salaries are examples of good things we are aware of because of MormonLeaks (though I do find most of what they post yawn worthy).For some journalism is just a word and I’m just an old crank—which is probably true. 😉 But I think it is pretty common when you invest yourself in a craft (and let’s be honest, a couple years in my early twenties is a very small investment) I think you feel differently about how words related to that craft get used. For those who disagree get off my lawn! And please turn down your loud music!!
I’m a former journalist (the traditional kind). I don’t see MormonLeaks as a journalistic endeavor, mostly because there’s no effort to provide perspective to the reader. The job of the journalist is not only to obtain information that the reader can’t obtain on his/her own, but to put it in context — and in the case of journalism that isn’t on the editorial page or marked as opinion, to do so in a balanced way. Groups such as MormonLeaks can provide an important function in a free society, but what they do is something other than journalism.
For me, the name MormonLeaks itself provides the perspective. It conveys the origins and a methodology, as unpleasant as the term “leaking” portrays. Most who would be drawn to the title and its “leaks” would also seem to be those familiar enough with the secret/sacred underlying entities and cultures referred to so broadly to understand some context and to know that those with more professional chops will perhaps add to or subtract needed muscle or fat, if needed.
Is a photojournalist legit? How is this “leaking” different than that?
Wreddyornot, valid point. But even the Wikipedia entry for photojournalism talks about ethics and providing context:
Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (e.g., documentary photography, social documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by complying with a rigid ethical framework which demands that the work be both honest and impartial whilst telling the story in strictly journalistic terms. Photojournalists create pictures that contribute to the news media, and help communities connect with one other. Photojournalists must be well informed and knowledgeable about events happening right outside their door. They deliver news in a creative format that is not only informative, but also entertaining.
Timeliness
The images have meaning in the context of a recently published record of events.
Objectivity
The situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict in both content and tone.
Narrative
The images combine with other news elements to make facts relatable to audiences.
Like a writer, a photojournalist is a reporter, but he or she must often make decisions instantly and carry photographic equipment, often while exposed to significant obstacles (e.g., physical danger, weather, crowds, physical access).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism
This brings up two thoughts for me.
1. Like a few people have already pointed out, journalism (as I define it) involves providing context and analysis of the information. Journalists tend to focus on stories that they expect will have a big impact on their audience. As part of their reporting, they show how things were before the story and they discuss implications for the future. MormonLeaks doesn’t offer any analysis or context. I’ve only visited their website a couple of times, and each time I was left wondering “So what?” about most of their content, even if a small portion of it is very impactful.
2. In my work (mental health counseling), we talk a lot about effective communication. One formula that works well for me is “True, Useful, Kind.” If my communication meets that description, then it’s more likely to accomplish my goal and leave everyone satisfied. I think of journalism much the same way, though maybe “Kind” should be changed to something like “Impartial.” MormonLeaks’info is usually true, occasionally seems useful, but rarely (to me) seems impartial/kind. I think it seems like they have an agenda beyond just spreading information.
http://www.gocomics.com/bignate
It’s Sunday — time for the funny pages…
:). That was a smile.
Isn’t MormonLeaks simply an advocacy organization? It’s always been my understanding that they have a cause (to encourage openness and transparency) and are furthering that cause by publishing information that is embarrassing to the Church in an effort to encourage to be more open in the future. I don’t necessarily see that as a journalistic pursuit.
Not a Cougar, I think advocacy group is appropriate. Their cause is truth and transparency, so they’ll publish any confidential document relating to the inner workings of the bureaucracy, even if it’s boring and doesn’t seem remotely newsworthy. Doesn’t even need to be embarrassing.
WikiLeaks and traditional journalists, on the other hand, seem to require their stuff to have some significance before they publish. There’s definitely a different philosophy there.