Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#21

Post by naasking »

206lol wrote: post #10
jonathanstrange wrote: post #4

The efforts to discredit Assange are a primary example of a successful smear campaign. It's not surprising that people are gullible to make such campaigns easy, character assassination always works when large government agencies are behind it for many years. I was actually surprised how long it took.

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things

What evil things, specifically?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#22

Post by psychphysic »

superkuh wrote: post #2

It's pretty clear what happened. People started to view the reporting of Wikileaks as evil or fake as soon as it negatively impacted $theirpoliticalside. Once these perceptions fell into place it was easy to disregard all the good, villify him personally, and ignore the authoritarian and illegal actions taken against him.

This is precisely it.

My pet theory is that the true effect of "cancel culture" isn't really on rich/popular people. But the public cancelling means on an individual level social groups eventually become homogeneous in their views.

The result is you must eject any idea, person or news source which doesn't 100% align with the current group values.

The outcome is that entities which don't take sides are the real victims of cancel culture. Why is does CNN always come to the same conclusions and cover the same things? Why does Fox? It's because if they stray they are goners.

WikiLeaks was truly neutral dumping all info it got. That was in no one's interest other than the diminishing open minded groups.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#23

Post by superkuh »

nabla9 wrote: post #9

Cockburn's story is not the full story. Assange is not charged only for doing journalism, such as revealing secret information. Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so. Journalists rightfully defend Assange only in the the first type of charges, but not in the second type. He should go to US and face charges. Assange stopped being journalist at some point and start…

>Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so.

But if you read all the detailed reporting from Wired (and others) at the time, including interviews with the rat (Adrian Lamo, https://www.wired.com/2010/06/leak/ , https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lamo/) who made up that claim to save his own butt, it's clear that that charge is false as well. Assange never commited computer intrusion himself and he also never encouraged others to do so. That was a lie the FBI forced Lamo into during the case against Manning.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#24

Post by psychphysic »

wazoox wrote: post #13
barrysteve wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was well before the Trump election. Colbert told him that the authorities would come after him in his 2007 appearance on the Colbert Report. The minute he published Collateral Murder, a video maximizing publicity on a fatal error in America's war effort, that was it for Assange and Wikileaks.

A "fatal error" in a totally unjustified and illegal war of aggression.

This video is likely to be the highlight of the decade for me.

https://youtu.be/s1kwq52NKmo

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#25

Post by f6v »

psychphysic wrote: post #24
wazoox wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "fatal error" in a totally unjustified and illegal war of aggression.

This video is likely to be the highlight of the decade for me. https://youtu.be/s1kwq52NKmo

I like how the audience laughs at the expense of a million ruined lives.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#27

Post by zzzeek »

naasking wrote: post #21
206lol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

> Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things What evil things, specifically?

He preferred the election of Donald Trump and worked to make that happen.

His preferences in specific political outcomes are well known:

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...

So yes, that would be why $politicalside doesn't like him, because he aligned with a very specific, pro-fascist $politicalside (whether or not he is actually a fascist).

downmod away folks but that's why $politicalside doesnt like Assange. He is extremely biased which makes the "journalist" angle look pretty weak. there's your answer

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#28

Post by mint2 »

Is it really a mystery why people turned on assange?

In his later years his work became similar to that of breitbart, James okeef, and tucker Carlson. Regardless of what one thinks of those, There’s no question that their publications and intentions are extremely slanted.

No surprise most of the country dislikes him

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#29

Post by DangitBobby »

nabla9 wrote: post #9

Cockburn's story is not the full story. Assange is not charged only for doing journalism, such as revealing secret information. Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so. Journalists rightfully defend Assange only in the the first type of charges, but not in the second type. He should go to US and face charges. Assange stopped being journalist at some point and start…

Weird that the only method which would allow you reveal government crimes happens to itself be a crime! Almost convenient, really.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#30

Post by mhh__ »

superkuh wrote: post #2

It's pretty clear what happened. People started to view the reporting of Wikileaks as evil or fake as soon as it negatively impacted $theirpoliticalside. Once these perceptions fell into place it was easy to disregard all the good, villify him personally, and ignore the authoritarian and illegal actions taken against him.

WikiLeaks arguably helped people to do that quite effectively. They've never really claimed to be neutral but especially around 2016 they were either getting played by or explicitly choosing to aid the trump campaign via the Russian state (at best as a messenger). III.B.3 of the Mueller report

I don't know if they are evil but I find it very hard to view them as anything other than selectively truthful at best.

Post reply on HN