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

201–210 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#201

Post by zzzeek »

naasking wrote: post #169
zzzeek wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Responses like this are just so bizarre to me. Do you think other Presidents didn't extort other countries for various concessions, even selfish ones that help their political ambitions? Do you think other Presidents were not grifters? Perhaps you should look into Obama's and the Clinton's net worth before and after their presidency. What really broke people's brains about Trump is that he was openly rude and obnoxio…

> Do you think other Presidents didn't extort other countries for various concessions, even selfish ones that help their political ambitions?

illegally withheld US military aid unless the country fabricated a story to help the candidate's campaign? No Democratic president in modern times has done such a thing. Obama had a fully Republican congress for 6 years and they would have impeached him for such a thing. But that didn't happen. Nor for Clinton, who was of course impeached, but not for extorting another country; just for lying about sexual favors. that's the best they could come up with. If either president had some something 1% as evil as what Trump did in just that one incident, we of *course* would have been hearing about it for years.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#202

Post by mopsi »

starkd wrote: post #189
luckylion wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

[flagged]

> Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned.

That hasn't been true since HIMARS arrived last summer. Now there's parity, and Russian war correspondents report that in some sectors Ukraine even exceeds Russian capabilities. In coming months, we'll see how the "hopelessly outgunned" army will do with more modern weapons in the upcoming spring counteroffensive. All we know right now is that the Russian winter offensive was a spectacular failure: worst casuality figures since the war began and nothing to show for it. Let's hope that Ukraine makes good progress and ends the war soon.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#203

Post by lyubalesya »

sandworm101 wrote: post #102
wutbrodo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be missing context here, but you're referring to the fact that they leaked the Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? Could you elaborate on why you think it's "selective" to have leaked those? Otherwise, it seems like you're saying "they're bad [via an unsupported claim like 'selectively truthful'] because they hurt my $politicalside"

If you are smart, and Assange isn't an idiot, then you should not allow yourself to become a tool of a foreign government. Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play. You must ask your source, why today? If you…

[dead]

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#204

Post by wutbrodo »

sandworm101 wrote: post #102
wutbrodo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be missing context here, but you're referring to the fact that they leaked the Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? Could you elaborate on why you think it's "selective" to have leaked those? Otherwise, it seems like you're saying "they're bad [via an unsupported claim like 'selectively truthful'] because they hurt my $politicalside"

If you are smart, and Assange isn't an idiot, then you should not allow yourself to become a tool of a foreign government. Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play. You must ask your source, why today? If you…

> Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play

I think this is a well-articulated representation of a specific (and much more common) journalistic ethos, but he quite explicitly holds a different ethos that is much more radical about transparency.

Plus, this answers the opposite of my question: I asked how GP comment supports his claim that Assange's is "selectively truthful", and you responded by saying that he's not selective enough!

GP could have made an argument like the one you made, disputing the very foundations of Assange's open-information philosophy. What piqued my curiosity was his novel claim of unprincipled selectivity, and I charitably wanted to avoid the assumption that his comment was simply word-salad covering up a politically-motivated dislike of WL.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#205

Post by caskstrength »

starkd wrote: post #108
cynicalsecurity wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.

[flagged]

As a Ukrainian I find your comments in this thread insulting. You should educate yourself a little about history of Ukraine before you start spewing such nonsense. I would suggest you to start with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8&list=PLh9mgdi4rN...

Now, I will assume you are just a misguided westerner who watches too much Fox news and indulge you:

> Ukraine is right on the russia's border.

So? How about US invading Mexico, occupying and annexing its lands, killing bunch of civilians while simultaneously demanding Mexico to "respect" US "sphere of influence", speak English, stop "threatening" it by committing to neutrality, etc.

> Their economies and cultures are intertwined.

Let them rape and indiscriminately kill bunch of civilians in some Bucha or other towns because of similar languages and economical ties? How does that make any sense to you? Also, claiming that Ukraine doesn't have its own historical roots and cultural identity is one of the Russian propaganda talking points.

> And their have been hostilities between the two

"Hostilities"? Excuse me? Russia occupied and annexed parts of Ukraine repeatedly but you dubbing it "hostilities" make it sound like some kind of a border skirmish where both parties are culpable which couldn't be further from the truth.

> since 2014 when the US formented a revolution there

Another Russian propaganda talking point. People were fed up with Yanukovich and decided to remove him from power. Support from US was inconsequential.

> I am not shilling for Russia

Yes you are! Openly and brazenly.

> peace agreement requires all parties to put everything on the table and deal openly

Well, yes, Russia would love Ukraine to put its lands "on the table", commit to neutrality, make Russian language the second national language and a lot more. And what exactly are the offering in return? To maybe stop attacking Ukraine for some time? Am I missing something?

> This could have happened.

It still can. Ukraine has been offering to solve the conflict through diplomacy as soon as Russia withdraw its forces. It is not like Ukraine is going to push into Russian territory to occupy Moscow and kill Putin. You understand that, do you?

Look, if you just prefer US to stop spending money on Ukraine you could just say so. Yes, this will lead to bunch of Ukrainians killed, raped or tortured in concentration (excuse me, "filtration"!) camps and you will feel somewhat bad for saying that, but at least it would be truthful. No need to play Tucker Carlson here with "border skirmishes" and "hostilities".

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#206

Post by CamperBob2 »

starkd wrote: post #145
walls wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is Russian propaganda: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...

Business Insider is not credible. Its a rag. They had the basis for peace talks to begin. Biden Administration decided to use it as a cheap way to damage Russia militarily with no American deaths. But massive Ukrainian deaths they find acceptable.

Yet you refuse to cite any sources at all, credible or otherwise. Interesting.

As for peace talks, here's Putin's take on that: "I'm going to rob your house tonight. I'd like to take 25% of your stuff, but if you'll agree to leave the door unlocked, we can probably get that figure down to 20%. If you agree not to call the police, I might even go as low as 15%. Sound fair?

"I mean, it's not like you have no culpability here. You're the one who threatened to join the neighborhood watch, after all. What am I supposed to do, mind my own business and stay on my side of the fence?"

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#207

Post by gWPVhyxPHqvk »

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.

If your homeland gets invaded one day, I hope to be an apologist for your invaders.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#208

Post by throwwwaway69 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #102
wutbrodo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be missing context here, but you're referring to the fact that they leaked the Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? Could you elaborate on why you think it's "selective" to have leaked those? Otherwise, it seems like you're saying "they're bad [via an unsupported claim like 'selectively truthful'] because they hurt my $politicalside"

If you are smart, and Assange isn't an idiot, then you should not allow yourself to become a tool of a foreign government. Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play. You must ask your source, why today? If you…

> you have to take a higher stance

I think the higher stance is to report as a journalist and not exercise your own bias into when you choose to publish. And regardless, if you choose to delay it, your source will simply go to someone who won't. There's never an instance where it makes sense to delay, and it never makes sense to decline to write on reputable information, since it's not like wikileaks has a monopoly on journalism

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#209

Post by zopa »

mynameishere wrote: post #117
mhh__ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would the Russian state want to help Trump? How did that ever make sense? "Bwahaha, let's connive to get a patriot into the White House rather than a bought-sold-and-enslaved traitor!" Unless they thought someone with an "America first" attitude would be less likely to start WWIII, it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Those boring leaks probably came from the inside.

Trump is, at minimum, lukewarm on NATO. If you think that’s good policy that’s your business, but surely it’s not hard to see what the appeal to Russia could be.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#210

Post by stefantalpalaru »

seattle_spring wrote: post #82
starkd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange how you automatically feel the need to support one side and can't see the horrible outcome this has been for all parties. This could have been resolved through diplomacy. You never see the term even mentioned anymore.

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

[dead]
Post reply on HN