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

61–70 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#61

Post by psychlops »

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.

I don't really think you can lay the blame here on people or perceptions and I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from the article. He was targeted by people in power and they laid an effective smoke screen and got rid of him.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#62

Post by mindslight »

starkd wrote: post #33
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.

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.

It's not due to "questioning" what's going on in Ukraine, but rather repeating Kremlin talking points.

Dragging it into the "both sides" empire-vs-empire context is exactly what Russia wants, as it justifies their naked imperialism while making it so their goal of Ukraine ceasing to exist could be some diplomatic middleground rather than the maximalist goal that it is.

In reality Ukraine wants to be part of the West, as it's a whole lot nicer than the Russian empire that seems to still be running on the playbook from the 1940's. So talking about this as if it's two empires divvying up a country is nonsensical - rather it's the cold truth that world powers exist, and to defend a war against one you have to align yourself with a different one.

And just so we're clear here, I say this as someone who wholeheartedly opposed invading Iraq.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#63

Post by starkd »

chpatrick wrote: post #53
starkd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet only one belligerent invaded the other. There aren't two sides to this.

I am not denying the Russian invasion is unlawful. Reread what I wrote. You are proving my point.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#65

Post by headsoup »

vntok wrote: post #40
headsoup wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If (1) you have acquired documents on both the DNC and the RNC, (2) they are both damaging and (3) you choose to only leak the ones about the DNC... well then it's not as clear cut and ethical as leaking both troves. Even if what you do leak is factually true.

Sure, that's a moral judgement. What's that got to do with the government's reaction and pursuit since, based on what was released?

I mean, if Wikileaks did (I wish they did, political bias ruins everything) release both troves, would your thoughts on the current situation change?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#66

Post by starkd »

mrighele wrote: post #39
starkd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or notice how those that are pissed off when they are called Putinists call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “proxy war” and blame the death of all those Ukrainian people on anybody except the culprit, I.e. Putin

Not what I said. You can blame Putin AND recognize this thing could have been avoided. The prime minister of Israel said they had a deal but the US said no.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#67

Post by psychlops »

ethbr0 wrote: post #60
phphphphp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the start, wikileaks was a partisan project masquerading as a righteous cause. Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”) remember that wikileaks was always about building a narrative rather than exposing the truth. Suggesting that people started thinking negatively about wikileaks once it came for “their side” is painfully revisionist. Many people believe wikileaks is…

Imho, if WikiLeaks had focused on being the Craigslist of information, without attempting to market themselves, they would have gotten a lot more public support. You can't transparently publish information and have an opinion.

Why not? Why is public support necessary for transparently publishing information?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#68

Post by Eumenes »

starkd wrote: post #51
AutumnCurtain wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank God no Russians have died in this "proxy war" they were so unable to avoid

I didn't say no Russians have died. There have been horrible deaths on both sides. No one is winning in this war.

US imperialism and the defense companies are winning this war

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#69

Post by mopsi »

starkd wrote: post #33
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.

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.

> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist.

Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan.

> No calls for diplomacy.

April 1945 was too late for peace offerings.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#70

Post by psychlops »

petesergeant wrote: post #64

> [Belmarsh] dubbed “Britain’s Guantánamo.” Oh come the heck on, it’s a standard British Category A prison. Any comparison to Gitmo are prima facie ludicrous and makes the rest of the article suspect

Not entirely:

"Between 2001 and 2002, Belmarsh Prison was used to detain a number of people indefinitely without charge or trial under the provisions of the Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, leading it to be called the "British version of Guantanamo Bay"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Belmarsh

Post reply on HN