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

331–340 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#331

Post by hulitu »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #162
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.

The press is not to have sides. Its to be a loose cannon in a democracy, firing at all and everybody who has power.

Are you sure ? Because the press instead of "firing at all and everybody who has power" is kissing the asses of "all and everybody who has power".

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#333

Post by yucky »

caskstrength wrote: post #329
yucky wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  > 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?
The reason the "coup vs revolution thing" matters so much is precisely what determines when the war started. If the CIA/State Dept hadn't been involved then and wasn't now treating this as a proxy war, then you would be right to think it all started when Putin rolled tanks into Crimea with no provocation. But we know that isn't what happened and we know the US was involved back then and is funding and arming Ukraine now in a proxy fight against Russia, and since we know all this we can't just blithely claim the war started the day Putin rolled into Crimea.

Putin didn't just decide one day to invade, whether you call it a revolution or a coup, the fact is the democratically elected government of Ukraine had just been overthrown, destabilizing the region and putting millions of Russians in harms way.

Now if you want to make the case that was a shitty justification for an invasion, ok - but that is a different conversation. I would argue it was at least as justified as our invasion of Iraq, Syria etc.

  > It seems we are in agreement that first act of war was occupation and annexation of Crimea?
Crimeans voted to become part of Russia after they saw their democratically elected government overthrown in 2014 though, you keep ignoring that part. You ask me why I don't just take your word for it since you were there, but what about the opinions of countless Crimeans who voted to break away from what they saw as a newly installed western-backed puppet government? Their position matters less than yours? And that's to say nothing about the people on Donetsk and Luhansk who also wanted nothing to do with what they saw as an illegitimate government that had just overthrown a democratically elected one, and they've had to deal with periodic shelling since then and the government trying to outlaw anything related to their heritage such as their language, their church their media outlets etc.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#334

Post by rocket_surgeron »

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.

>In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.

As far as Assange goes I think he is a liar.

The primary piece of evidence I use to support this is that he claims that his media firm, Sunshine Press was a non-profit when its documents of incorporation list it as a private limited company.

https://www.facebook.com/WikiLeaks.SunshinePress

>Official Facebook Page-- The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks), is an international non-profit organization

(That's all I've got as its website is dead now)

Incorporation document: https://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIO...

Definition of EHF: https://island.is/en/limited-liability-companies

A second piece of evidence is that the original release of Collateral Murder was edited to remove the armed men accompanying the journalists who were killed and the unedited version was only released after public outcry. The presence of armed men escorting the journalists may have been used to justify the attack, which occurred just a couple hundred meters from an active firefight, so the context was deleted in the initial release.

A third piece of evidence is that Assange lied to John Young, a highly-respected member of the "leaking" community to get him to register the original Wikileaks domain waaaay back in the day and then the Wikileaks community turned on John when he dared speak out.

https://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

Finally, a fourth piece of evidence is that they used Wau Holland (Chaos Computer Club) as an initial fundraising arm to funnel money to Sunshine Press, and Wau Holland promised an audit of the substantial sums of money being directed to Sunshine Press, but they only ended up publishing three bare-bones "transparency reports" after millions had been spent and their tax-free status had been revoked for funding a for-profit enterprise. Once it became impossible to funnel donations tax-free to the for-profit business through Wau Holland donations slowed, communications stopped, and the association between the two ended. Please note that none of the banking shenanigans going on at the time impacted Wau Holland.

https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-informati...

Does any of the above make me an authoritarian?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#335

Post by voltaireodactyl »

naasking wrote: post #330
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conde…

I appreciate you expanding on your point of view. In response to “get some perspective”, I have to say I think I have plenty and that I find a difference of degrees to be a difference all the same.

Which is to say, while I take your point about the relative morality of large scale leadership, having lived through all the folks you mentioned and more, that Trump’s naked pursuit of personal scores with public resources was unprecedented in my lifetime. Society is a shared illusion, presentation matters, and boy did his coarsening of that conversation have far-reaching consequences.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#336

Post by stillbourne »

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)

I like the "John Doe" from the Panama Papers. Remained anonymous, spread his message, didn't add anything unnecessary and remained out of public spectacle.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#337

Post by caskstrength »

yucky wrote: post #333
caskstrength wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? The reason the "coup vs revolution thing" matters so much is precisely what determines when the war started. If the CIA/State Dept hadn't been involved then and wasn't now treating this as a proxy war, then you would be right to think it all started when Putin rolled tanks in…

> If the CIA/State Dept hadn't been involved then and wasn't now treating this as a proxy war, then you would be right to think it all started when Putin rolled tanks into Crimea with no provocation. But we know that isn't what happened and we know the US was involved back then and is funding and arming Ukraine now in a proxy fight against Russia, and since we know all this we can't just blithely claim the war started the day Putin rolled into Crimea.

Who are "we"? Links, please! All I know that bunch of my well-off middle class friends, coworkers, acquaintances participated. They are still waiting for CIA to send them the paychecks BTW. So, to me it looked very much like a _revolution_, but obviously random Fox news fan from US knows better...

> Putin didn't just decide one day to invade, whether you call it a revolution or a coup, the fact is the democratically elected government of Ukraine had just been overthrown, destabilizing the region and putting millions of Russians in harms way.

Harms way? Oh, I was waiting for those bloodthirsty russian-killing Ukrainian nazis to come in! (I'm a _russian-speaking Ukrainian_ BTW)

> Now if you want to make the case that was a shitty justification for an invasion, ok - but that is a different conversation. I would argue it was at least as justified as our invasion of Iraq, Syria etc.

So not justified at all?!

> Crimeans voted to become part of Russia after they saw their democratically elected government overthrown in 2014 though, you keep ignoring that part. You ask me why I don't just take your word for it since you were there, but what about the opinions of countless Crimeans who voted to break away from what they saw as a newly installed western-backed puppet government?

What about them? Crimea was de facto part of Russia for almost 8 years before Russia (re)invaded and it didn't look like the situation was going to change any time soon.

> And that's to say nothing about the people on Donetsk and Luhansk who also wanted nothing to do with what they saw as an illegitimate government that had just overthrown a democratically elected one, and they've had to deal with periodic shelling since then and the government trying to outlaw anything related to their heritage such as their language, their church their media outlets etc.

Outlaw my heritage? Excuse me? Part of my family is from Donetsk and I spent a lot of time there during my childhood so please spare me your Russian propaganda bullshit about bloodthirsty Ukrainian nazis that were going to brutalize tHeM RuSsiAn sPeaKiNg PeOplez oF DonBaSS until glorious President Putin intervened, thank you very much!

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#338

Post by yucky »

caskstrength wrote: post #337
yucky wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? The reason the "coup vs revolution thing" matters so much is precisely what determines when the war started. If the CIA/State Dept hadn't been involved then and wasn't now treating this as a proxy war, then you would be right to think it all started when Putin rolled tanks in…

> If the CIA/State Dept hadn't been involved then and wasn't now treating this as a proxy war, then you would be right to think it all started when Putin rolled tanks into Crimea with no provocation. But we know that isn't what happened and we know the US was involved back then and is funding and arming Ukraine now in a proxy fight against Russia, and since we know all this we can't just blithely claim the war starte…

You're very emotionally attached to your positions and it's therefore pretty clear you are not open to discussion. Considering how strongly you feel, have you considered going back and fighting the good fight?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#339

Post by [deleted] »

the_third_wave wrote: post #184
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.

> III.B.3 of the Mueller report The 'Russian collusion case' has been thoroughly discredited so why do you bring it up here, other than to muddle the issue? If you want to have a clear case of meddling with presidential elections I'd point at the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funding of the Steele dossier. Should that be brought up here as well? The 'dossier' was also discredited but it w…

[deleted]

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#340

Post by kornhole »

_kbh_ wrote: post #314
dontlaugh wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ukrainian state has been breaking the Minsk accords for almost as long as they’ve each been in place, most blatantly by bombing the Donbas. Not that this would justify invasion of Ukraine proper, but let’s not pretend this has ever been one-sided. Wars end through peace agreements. Deliberately preventing them is what war mongers do.

> Wars end through peace agreements. Deliberately preventing them is what war mongers do. How can you make a peace agreement with a country that doesn't follow its own agreements?. Russia already promised decades ago to never violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine way before 2014 and that ended up not being worth the paper it was written on.

If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement.
Post reply on HN