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

131–140 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#131

Post by starkd »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #112
starkd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be? > 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. Propaganda nonsense. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...

The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war.

He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows a lot about him right there. He is an untrustworthy source for anything.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#132

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

mhh__ wrote: post #30
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.

> they were either getting played by or explicitly choosing to aid the trump campaign via the Russian state

The article addresses this belief and fairly well debunks it's origins.

Outraged the Clinton campaign swiftly ascribed the leaks to Vladimir Putin's intelligence apparatus as part of an operation to secure Trump's victory. The accusation was fueled by forensic analysis from the DNC's cybersecurity consultants, from CrowdStrike, detailing the potential links between the leaks and the Russian government.

Testifying under oath in a closed-door session before the committee in 2017, CrowdStrike’s chief security officer Shawn Henry admitted that he had no “concrete evidence” that the Russians had stolen the emails, or indeed that anyone had hacked the DNC’s system.

This crucial interview remained locked away until 2020. The press did little to acknowledge it; the testimony failed to attract even a passing mention in the New York Times, the Guardian, or any other mainstream outlet that had previously charted the Russian hacking story.

Something I personally observed (after 2006 and before 2020) is that we had 4 cybersecurity companies that frequently served as mouthpieces for US NatSec agencies - Mandiant, Fireeye, Crowdstrike and Cylance. They'd be called in to assist in some cybersecurity event and would unfailing parrot that agency's FUD, without ever providing any meaningful evidence. During these same events, non-gov cybersecurity experts were commonly casting doubts on US Gov's official narrative.

The above event seems like Crowdstrike acting is it's usual capacity as a Gov-adjacent mouthpiece - that is until the House committee compelled the CSO to supply evidence of Crowdstrike's parroted claim.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#133

Post by mopsi »

starkd wrote: post #121
mopsi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His words were initially taken out of context; he meant that allies stopped pressuring Ukraine into a peace deal after mass graves were uncovered in Bucha. That's the only source for this conspiracy theory. It goes against your whole narrative of how the US is forcing Ukraine into a war.

There was still a basis on which talks could have been opened up. The fact they were entirely nixed shows they are not interested. 200,000 Ukrainian deaths when they can't even define what victory looks like beyond slogans. They are trying to fight a war on the cheap so long as no American casualties happen, but they are perfectly fine so long as they are Ukrainian casualties. At least, they could at least define wha…

There's nothing to negotiate at this point. Either Russia moves its guns and tanks and soldiers out of the whole Ukraine like they retreated from around Kharkiv, or Russia gets defeated on the battlefield. Anything else would leave Ukrainians in occupied territories to be wiped out by Russians. Russian hopes of a favorable peace deal is nothing but a coping mechanism, just like top Nazis hoped to reach a peace deal in 1945. Better prepare your cyanide pill.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#134

Post by barbacoa »

bandyaboot wrote: post #105

The impact Assange and Wikileaks have had in exposing nefarious government secrets shouldn’t be forgotten. But, the damage that they’ve suffered to their reputation is entirely deserved. I don’t believe for a second that they didn’t know what they were doing when they partnered with Russia in 2016 to help draw as much attention as possible to the DNC emails—that is, engaging in an asymmetric political operation. That…

To be fair to WikiLeaks there is very little evidence that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hacks. The FBI never had access to the servers and the the whole Russia hacking narrative relies on the DNC's claim of "trust us when we said this is what happened".

Similarly the recent Twitter revelations on Hamilton68 showed that the Russian bots on manipulating social media was more or less BS.

Who know what really happened, but what may have happened was that the hacking was blamed on Russia instead of say China, or [insert foreign adversary] because the FBI panicked when trump was elected after using the Steele dossier to spy on his campaign and needed a narrative to justify their actions.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#135

Post by luckylion »

starkd wrote: post #71
luckylion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This could have been resolved through diplomacy. Yes, by giving Ukraine to Russia. We know how it works if you try to appease fascists, come on.

This is a more complex than that. I don't like the invasion, but its not like Russia has no vital interests in the area that is right on their border. And they have occupied Crimea in the past going back to 1776. I'm just saying they have as much national interest as the West does. Israel Prime Minister claims they had a deal that was agreed to but Biden administration turned it down. It's also the responsible thing…

Of course Russia has vital interests all around it: everyone does. But it doesn't follow that "therefore Russia should be allowed to annex everything around it".

Again, we know that playbook, it has played out before in Europe. Today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Poland, and your arguments will still be exactly the same: Russia has vital interests in Poland, Russia has occupied Poland before, Poland is outgunned, and why would we care about Poland, really?

And then it's Germany, at which point, again, nothing has changed. Britain and France might use their nuclear deterrence when it's their turn, but if they listened to you, they'd probably say "do we want to end humanity just because we don't like Russia to rule over us? Surely not, humanity is too important to be destroyed over Russia's vital interest to annex whatever is next to Russia" and roll over.

It would end only when Russia invades the US or China, because neither will allow it if their nuclear weapons are still available by then.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#137

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

starkd wrote: post #131
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ukraine is right on the russia's border. Their economies and cultures are intertwined So, according to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of USA would not be justified, but a British invasion and occupation of The Republic of Ireland would be? > 2014 when the US formented a revolution there. Propaganda nonsense. https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...

The Bulwark is a neocon publication by Bill Kristol. He still refuses to apologize for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is part of the war machine that is perfectly happy to see perpetual war. He was a solid republican, but he was all too happy to ditch everything he said he believed in to embrace the cultural issues of the left. The only thing he kept the same was his hawkish views on foreign policy. That shows…

I already know who Bill Kristol is, and the people (plural) behind The Bulwark are, thanks. It's not hidden, it's here https://www.thebulwark.com/about-us/

I'm not a fan of their political project, my point is that even they don't buy this "coup" nonsense.

I do not think either that he "ditched everything he said he believed in" when their political party changed and they did not, that's rather a specific framing from an extremist faction of that party.

No doubt you prefer noted thinker, Dan Crenshaw.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#138

Post by throwwwaway69 »

mhh__ wrote: post #30
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.

> They've never really claimed to be neutral

they do and they inarguably are. there is not any evidence at all that they have received reputable and material information and declined to report on it

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#139

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

starkd wrote: post #99
seattle_spring wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, what are your primary sources of information that have shaped your opinions and perspectives shown in this thread?

Quite a few. I try to listen to what everyone is saying. It always makes me nervous when the media seem to march in lockstep. Looks into what David Sacks has been saying. He got into it on the ALL-in podcast a couple of weeks ago, but you can find him on Twitter. He says the corruption in Ukraine right now is off the charts. Higher than anything in any corrupt Latin American country. Its difficult to decipher what is…

> Quite a few.

name a top three then, or can we assume that this is "random forwards on FaceBook or twitter" ?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#140

Post by zzzeek »

kerkeslager wrote: post #116
zzzeek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having a preference you don't like is pretty different from "doing evil". I mean, I don't like that preference either, but the documents leaked were real, and I haven't heard that Wikileaks/Assange had equivalent dirt on Trump they could have leaked and didn't.

well a lot of us think Trump was pretty much the definition of evil, i mean, extorted an entire country with the threat of illegally withholding US military aid unless they made up political campaign propaganda for him, sometimes you have to just draw a line, like when it's blindingly obvious Assange preferred helping to install a corrupt grifter to run the US government into the dirt. He hates the US government. A lot of us USians think "try to wreck the US government by installing a mobster as president" is evil.
Post reply on HN