31–40 of 355 posts
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
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 got stiffed in that respect, but he did achieve his specific goal of tanking Clinton's campaign.
Old interview of him talking about it: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_j...
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.
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.
It's the same page from the same playbook...repeat X enough times - regardless of accuracy - and perception becomes reality.
Nearly every major news organization practices this, shamelessly. It's a biz model based on eye-ball not journalism standards. It's a biz model that protects the few and the expense of properly informing the many.
[flagged]
Do you believe it’s acceptable to revoke journalist’s protection for the reasons you’ve listed and jail them for the reasons you’ve listed?
Are there any journalists you might agree with, that don’t share any of the traits of your rant, that are going to suffer downstream from you being okay with revoking journalistic protections on these conditions?
What a sorry, shameful saga. I found this story linked to on rms' home page: > Our next rally for Julian Assange is Saturday, March 4 at 11:30 to 12:30pm. We will gather at Park St. Station on the Boston Common to speak out for Assange and gather signatures on our petition to our senators. (See how the media failed Julian Assange at Harper's Magazine.) https://stallman.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit. I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives. Is the evidence Assange released factual?
Assange has certainly played with outright lies e.g. Seth Rich.
Most of WikiLeaks output as far as I'm aware is mostly truthful to what was given to them, with the caveat that they are telling a story (e.g. bellingcat have no issues finding dirt on Russians, WikiLeaks don't).
They are also very happy to cause collateral damage of their own, IIRC they're very happy to leak personal details & CC numbers of people associated with those they dislike (iirc it was democratic donors in some US state, the data was leaked unredacted).
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.
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.
And notice how these fatal errors are still occurring. The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. No calls for diplomacy. Meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have been led to their deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignore Assange's character, focus on leaks of dubious, probably state actor origin, precisely timed in their release. Focus on which state propaganda network hosted his show, whom he met with in the embassy, etc.
Got non-circumstantial evidence for that? I mean there certainly should be some for the seriousness of his pursuit. I don't like the guy, but I also don't like arguments based on political narratives. Is the evidence Assange released factual?