After the 2018 Muller investigation showed clearly and definitively that Wikileaks (and certainly Assange personally) worked with the Russian GRU (in the form of Guccifer 2.0) to influence US...
Journalist environments and defenders of journalism have wised-up because Assange is being prosecuted as a hacker. Not as a journalist revealing information in a reasonable way (which Wikileaks stopped doing in 2010. Since then random bystanders have been put in harm's way, or just straight out been doxxed.)
Many in media have wised up in the years after, as the speculation stories outside of courts have continued, and it's become clearer and clearer to anyone paying attention that Assange is a terrible person and a tool used by authoritarian regimes to try to subvert democracies.
Even if everything you said is 100% true, that's not really what this article is about. This is about Western media fanfaring accusations, prosecutions, and hit pieces. But then when damning...
Even if everything you said is 100% true, that's not really what this article is about.
This is about Western media fanfaring accusations, prosecutions, and hit pieces.
But then when damning evidence appears that there was foul play by US authorities, or entire cases built on lies (such as this one), the media is disturbingly quiet.
This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last.
We will see in court what evidence there is, and what evidence there is not. The prosecution will present their side of the story in the courtrooms, not in the press. Western media built Assange...
We will see in court what evidence there is, and what evidence there is not. The prosecution will present their side of the story in the courtrooms, not in the press.
Western media built Assange up to be something he clearly is not. The story is not about a journalist being railroaded by US authorities, but about a hacker on the run trying to avoid his day in court. That's important for how the story is covered.
As we wait for the prosecution's actual evidence, we're at a stage where twists and turns for a discredited hacker is only newsworthy to those deeply engaged with the story.
When there are newsworthy developments in this case as it stands now, it'll get the coverage it deserves.
This is a worrying stance to have. The media has proven itself (throughout history, and particularly contemporary history) to be an often-critical counterweight to broken judicial systems. Julian...
We will see in court what evidence there is, and what evidence there is not. The prosecution will present their side of the story in the courtrooms, not in the press.
This is a worrying stance to have. The media has proven itself (throughout history, and particularly contemporary history) to be an often-critical counterweight to broken judicial systems.
Western media built Assange up to be something he clearly is not. The story is not about a journalist being railroaded by US authorities, but about a hacker on the run trying to avoid his day in court. That's important for how the story is covered.
Julian Assange is a journalist, not a hacker. That the evidence supposing him as the latter was revealed to be fabricated for a witness's immunity is the main point of this article. Assange is also certainly not on the run - he is rotting in a British prison, while the United States takes its sweet time constructing evidence against him.
As we wait for the prosecution's actual evidence, we're at a stage where twists and turns for a discredited hacker is only newsworthy to those deeply engaged with the story. When there are newsworthy developments in this case as it stands now, it'll get the coverage it deserves.
That's certainly some faith in mass media. The key witness of the case against Assange, revealed to be a perpetual liar and fraudster, has now also been revealed to have made up the basis of the case against Assange. That's not a newsworthy development?
Again, regardless of any of this, that the United States can claim that a journalist is a "hacker" and set out to arrest him, that American and allied media shies away from covering anything to do with evidence of foul play, and that so many countries around the world have been shown to be politically overpowered by the US in this case sets terrible precedents for a country that once valued journalistic freedom so highly.
You do not need to have gone to school for journalism to be a journalist. Trying to discredit the primary reporter of some of the most important events in the twenty-first century, and who has won...
You do not need to have gone to school for journalism to be a journalist. Trying to discredit the primary reporter of some of the most important events in the twenty-first century, and who has won multiple journalistic awards while doing it, is a shoddy excuse for trying to morally vindicate the violation of Assange's First Amendment rights.
This article sums it up in a harsh but accurate manner.
All of the evidence for what I was referencing is in the article of this post, which I though was readily apparant, but maybe not. I can quote the specific parts of the article if need be.
I'd point out that its possible for someone to be both a hacker and a journalist at the same time. Just like it's entirely possible that Assange can be a generally reprehensible and unpleasant...
I'd point out that its possible for someone to be both a hacker and a journalist at the same time.
Just like it's entirely possible that Assange can be a generally reprehensible and unpleasant human being, and that his treatment by authorities - in this case -is unjust and/or unlawful.
After the 2018 Muller investigation showed clearly and definitively that Wikileaks (and certainly Assange personally) worked with the Russian GRU (in the form of Guccifer 2.0) to influence US elections, for some odd reason much fewer media outlets are running interference for Assange and Greenwald.
I mean, it's been clear Assange isn't like other US whistleblowers for years, but people just haven't wanted to hear it. But after the Muller investigation, old pieces like the ghostwriter of an autobiography on Assange laying it all out from 2014 have been much more widely read. It's very damning.
Journalist environments and defenders of journalism have wised-up because Assange is being prosecuted as a hacker. Not as a journalist revealing information in a reasonable way (which Wikileaks stopped doing in 2010. Since then random bystanders have been put in harm's way, or just straight out been doxxed.)
Like when Wikileaks doxxed all turkish female voters 2016 or has straight up lied about the origin of documents, misconstruing public documents as new leaks that Wikileaks stands behind.
I wrote in a comment on tildes in 2019 that I was interesting to see how many have continued to support Wikileaks against reason because they appear to want so bad that Assange and Wikileaks were their guy even though they've clearly demonstrated they're not.
Many in media have wised up in the years after, as the speculation stories outside of courts have continued, and it's become clearer and clearer to anyone paying attention that Assange is a terrible person and a tool used by authoritarian regimes to try to subvert democracies.
Even if everything you said is 100% true, that's not really what this article is about.
This is about Western media fanfaring accusations, prosecutions, and hit pieces.
But then when damning evidence appears that there was foul play by US authorities, or entire cases built on lies (such as this one), the media is disturbingly quiet.
This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last.
We will see in court what evidence there is, and what evidence there is not. The prosecution will present their side of the story in the courtrooms, not in the press.
Western media built Assange up to be something he clearly is not. The story is not about a journalist being railroaded by US authorities, but about a hacker on the run trying to avoid his day in court. That's important for how the story is covered.
As we wait for the prosecution's actual evidence, we're at a stage where twists and turns for a discredited hacker is only newsworthy to those deeply engaged with the story.
When there are newsworthy developments in this case as it stands now, it'll get the coverage it deserves.
I disagree entirely with every sentence above.
This is a worrying stance to have. The media has proven itself (throughout history, and particularly contemporary history) to be an often-critical counterweight to broken judicial systems.
Julian Assange is a journalist, not a hacker. That the evidence supposing him as the latter was revealed to be fabricated for a witness's immunity is the main point of this article. Assange is also certainly not on the run - he is rotting in a British prison, while the United States takes its sweet time constructing evidence against him.
That's certainly some faith in mass media. The key witness of the case against Assange, revealed to be a perpetual liar and fraudster, has now also been revealed to have made up the basis of the case against Assange. That's not a newsworthy development?
Again, regardless of any of this, that the United States can claim that a journalist is a "hacker" and set out to arrest him, that American and allied media shies away from covering anything to do with evidence of foul play, and that so many countries around the world have been shown to be politically overpowered by the US in this case sets terrible precedents for a country that once valued journalistic freedom so highly.
You do not need to have gone to school for journalism to be a journalist. Trying to discredit the primary reporter of some of the most important events in the twenty-first century, and who has won multiple journalistic awards while doing it, is a shoddy excuse for trying to morally vindicate the violation of Assange's First Amendment rights.
This article sums it up in a harsh but accurate manner.
All of the evidence for what I was referencing is in the article of this post, which I though was readily apparant, but maybe not. I can quote the specific parts of the article if need be.
I'd point out that its possible for someone to be both a hacker and a journalist at the same time.
Just like it's entirely possible that Assange can be a generally reprehensible and unpleasant human being, and that his treatment by authorities - in this case -is unjust and/or unlawful.