[orbitingpluto]

I would say yes.

Journalism is supposed to guide you to readily available and verifiable facts whenever possible. The journalist gives you insight into an event. One is then able to leapfrog the initial hurdle of that initial research and more easily educate yourself about the world you live in.

Without facts and sources, it's just storytime.

EDIT: More importantly, you can't divorce journalistic research from journalism itself.

[magoon]

I disagree that "facts" are "journalism" -- but can you even say that the text of a bunch of emails, dumped verbatim, are readily and verifiable facts? Or is it simply somebody else's conversation?

Is whatever you say in email a readily available and verifiable fact? is dumping your private emails "journalism"?

[glesica]

The "fact" is that "somebody said this in an email". Some of the most interesting things in the diplomatic cables were not of the form "X did Y" but rather "X said Y to Z". In that case, yes, an email is a fact.