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

321–330 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#321

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

yesenadam wrote: post #232
stillbourne wrote: post #221

The era of alternative facts were kind of started with Julian Assange. The video "Collateral Murder" was heavily edited by Mr. Assange. It was damning enough without his edits, he didn't need to add his personal soundtrack and audio edits to the video. How Mr. Assange has become the poster boy of "leakers against the government" with his outrageous egotistical and dickish behavior is beyond me. Leakers should give "t…

> How Mr. Assange has become the poster boy of "leakers against the government" with his outrageous egotistical and dickish behavior is beyond me So, who do you think it should be instead? (genuine question)

Edward Snowden would be the closest to what I have, but before anyone starts pointing out his shortcomings, we can't assume that the perfect poster boy exists already. Maybe they don't, yet.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#322

Post by throw10920 »

calibas wrote: post #57

There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the government is open and honest so the people can make informed decisions on how best to run their government. In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.

> ask them their opinions on Snowden

In your "opinion", what fraction of the documents that Edward Snowden stole were directly related to spying on American citizens?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#323

Post by throw10920 »

shp0ngle wrote: post #268
calibas wrote: post #57

There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the government is open and honest so the people can make informed decisions on how best to run their government. In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.

Isn't Putin nowadays for Assange and definitely for Snowden? This is a stupid test.

Snowden and Assange are also completely incomparable situations - you're right, it's an extremely stupid test, to the point of being non-nonsensical.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#324

Post by schuyler2d »

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…

What about Ukraine's national interest? Where does that fit in?

What about the Eastern European countries' interests whose combined economies eclipses Russia?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#325

Post by boffinAudio »

apercu wrote: post #320
phphphphp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in…

Agreed. I find both of these things true: People in government positions in the US and UK abused their power. Julian Assange is not a good, or honest person.

So you'll only accept evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and then take action about it within the context of your own democratic processes, if you get that evidence from a good and/or honest person?

Because honestly, this just keeps the door open for more crimes. Rarely is anyone ever good enough or honest enough - and neither of those conditions are required for addressing our heinous crimes against humanity, frankly. You just have to be good enough to know that war crimes and crimes against humanity are heinous, and honest enough to produce workable evidence that can be used to produce justice.

Assange is good enough and honest enough for that case, really - and if a person doesn't agree, they're a bootlicker thug. The WAR CRIMES have to stop. The CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY have to stop. It doesn't matter one iota what sort of person reports the evidence - the evidence is real. The crimes are real.

Assange's honesty doesn't change the enormous magnitude of the victims digging their loved ones out of the rubble, one bit.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#326

Post by boffinAudio »

thefounder wrote: post #273
phphphphp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in…

Ok, let's open some new positions for totally noble poeple to expose the truth. Anything less than noble should be put in prison regardless of the truth exposed. Any takers? Meanwhile let's see what b.s mainstream media is pushing. They are not less than noble and deserve the whole attention.

Its a straw man argument. The thugs dropping bombs on innocent people every twenty minutes aren't good enough or honest enough, either. You only have to be marginally better than them - a very low bar - in order to effect change.

Which means, if you aren't interested in effecting change in the form of real justice for these war crimes and crimes against humanity, you're not one nanometer taller, in terms of moral authority, than the criminals dropping bombs on peoples heads - in your name.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#327

Post by CamperBob2 »

93po wrote: post #245
mynameishere wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Why would the Russian state want to help Trump? Especially because Trump was objectively pretty anti-Russia, and did a lot of things that pissed off Russia. But there is too much hysteria around "OMG RUSSIA AND TRUMP" and general FUD propaganda for anyone to see the forest for the trees of "orange man bad"

"We get all the funding we need out of Russia," isn't objectively anti-Russia.

Believing Putin over his own intel agencies -- and publicly proclaiming as much -- is actively pro-Russia.

If Trump didn't want people to think he was a Russian asset, he might have tried not acting like one.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#328

Post by yucky »

caskstrength wrote: post #309
yucky wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The revolution was not "on their border", it was in another independent country. Trying to deny Ukranian agency and sovereignty is usual Russian propaganda talking point. You are basically saying "Those pesky Ukrainians started a revolution without asking glorious Russian president Putin first while also being at Russian border! That was definitively an act of war!" which is laughable. And just for you to note - I ha…

I never said the "totally not a coup revolution" was an act of war, I said of course Russia would respond to it just like we would if the same thing happened in Mexico since it would go against our national interest. We almost went to war with the Soviets just for getting too close to us in Cuba and still sanction Cuba to this day because of it.

Large powers take great interest in their enemies being on their border - more news at 11.

Meanwhile, it is interesting that you don't support the Crimeans voting to be part of Russia in 2014, but fully support the overthrowing of the democratically elected government in 2014. Is that logically consistent in your mind?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#329

Post by caskstrength »

yucky wrote: post #328
caskstrength wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The revolution was not "on their border", it was in another independent country. Trying to deny Ukranian agency and sovereignty is usual Russian propaganda talking point. You are basically saying "Those pesky Ukrainians started a revolution without asking glorious Russian president Putin first while also being at Russian border! That was definitively an act of war!" which is laughable. And just for you to note - I ha…

I never said the "totally not a coup revolution" was an act of war, I said of course Russia would respond to it just like we would if the same thing happened in Mexico since it would go against our national interest. We almost went to war with the Soviets just for getting too close to us in Cuba and still sanction Cuba to this day because of it. Large powers take great interest in their enemies being on their border…

> I never said the "totally not a coup revolution" was an act of war

So what did you imply by (snarky) question "When do you think the war started?" followed by "Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?"? It seems we are in agreement that first act of war was occupation and annexation of Crimea?

Also, why are people like you are so hung up on this "coup vs revolution" thing? What exactly are you trying to achieve by playing with words here?

BTW you might want to consider listening to observers and insiders who actually experienced events directly. Like, you have actual Ukranian who was living nearby to Independence square during both 2004 and 2014 events and yet instead of changing your opinions based on my input you double down on lecturing _me_ about events I have first hand experience with. This makes you look like either a shill or just a person with poorly developed critical thinking.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#330

Post by naasking »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #291
naasking wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reagan had Contra, so there’s definitely precedent. I am reluctant to file it under “normal business” though.

I agree it shouldn't be normal, but it unfortunately already is to various degrees, though often in slightly more "subtle" ways, eg. nation building, defense contracts, insider trading, the revolving door of Washington leading to cushy lobbying gigs, speaking tours, etc.

Obama, Cheney and Bush are war criminals under international law and Trump isn't, but boy when Trump is rude to someone, there's no end to the condemnations that he's the worst person ever, despite being the only president of the past 30 or so years who didn't start a war. Even crazier, those war criminals are now all darlings of the Democrats because they trash talked Trump.

Trump and the way the media played on his craziness for ratings really broke people's brains. I wouldn't want that buffoon as president either, but really, get some perspective. He wouldn't be nearly as appealing if politicians weren't almost universally awful and self-serving, but because that's normal and they're "polite" about screwing you over, well that's just fine and dandy.

Post reply on HN