8 ms·

I've no idea of the truth of the original allegations, or his claims that he was set up, but since then it's quite impressive how he's managed to change my perc

I've no idea of the truth of the original allegations, or his claims that he was set up, but since then it's quite impressive how he's managed to change my perception of him and wikileaks from 'champions of freedom-of-information / free speech' to 'russian government stooge' over the last few years.

convery 9y ago
So, he leaks Russian government secrets while working for them? Seems legit.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  If you mean, when you say “legit”, “a common—cliché, even—method for a intelligence service to have their agent demonstrate bogus bona fide in order to either establish credibility or obscure their reporting relationship”, then, yes, I'd say it sounds “legit”.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    Truth is lies, lies is truth. How can anyone ever be legit?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- travmatt 9y ago
  By leaking do you mean censoring emails showing Russian bank transfers to Syrian banks, then treatening reporters who actually report on it?[0] Or his tv deal with RT?[1] Or his tacit admission to Pussy Riot he works for Putin?[2] Or his failure to deliver on promised Russian leaks?[3] Or how he turned down Russia related leaks? [4] Or, my favorite, the time that he tried to discredit the panama papers showing Putin's hiding of wealth , decrying it as a CIA plot. Or are we just talking about the clearly timed leaks of Clinton emails every time Trumps campaign seemed in jeopardy? I can probably be convinced that Assange isn't just a Russian operative, but to just act like he believes in 'radical transparency' or doesn't have shady connections is laughable at this point. [0]https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-reporters-syria-russia-emails https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-... [1]http://bigthink.com/think-tank/julian-assange-to-host-talk-show-on-russia-today http://bigthink.com/think-tank/julian-assange-to-host-talk-s... [2]https://www.thedailybeast.com/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokno-julian-assange-is-connected-with-the-russian-government https://www.thedailybeast.com/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokno-juli... [3]https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-r... [4]http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
  - serf 9y ago
    >Or his tv deal with RT?[1] I'm getting tired of that one. I don't have a dog in this race, and have little opinion on Assange's actions, but media opportunities are media opportunities. I have absolutely no trouble considering RT and their opinion to be spun, but I don't automatically associate Neil deGrasse Tyson with the opinions of Fox News or Bill Maher for simply being a guest and using the media opportunity to speak to an audience. RT spins things. BBC spins things. NYT spins things. Fox spins things. MSNBC spins things, it should be no surprise that media outlets, most especially ones funded by a nation state, have a hard bias. Serious question : if Assange was seeking a media soapbox to sit on top of, what other network choices did he have, being implicated in a feud with western agencies?
    - travmatt 9y ago
      You don’t see any logical inconsistency in saying that being paid by Putin doesn’t imply that Assange works for him? Besides the fact that I see quite a difference between RT and the other outlets you’ve mentioned (I don’t remember multiple journalists quitting from those other organizations because they were ‘being used to spread propaganda’), my answer was to show the multitudes of questionable connections and even more questionable judgements can’t just be reduced down to something that is conveniently dismissed.
- plugger 9y ago
  Yea, his thorough reporting on Anna Politkovskaya's murder really supports your statement. /s
davidw 9y ago
I wonder what their angle is on all this. Give him a place to run to? Silence him to keep him from spilling any beans about collusion with Trump campaign? Ignore him?
russianbandit 9y ago
He managed, or the media that you consume managed?
- quink 9y ago
  While I can’t speak for OP, in my case it’s none of the media I consumed that changed the tide, and all WikiLeaks themselves.
cmelbye 9y ago
> It's quite impressive how he's managed to change my perception of him and wikileaks from 'champions of freedom-of-information / free speech' to 'russian government stooge' over the last few years. I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them. He had information that was seriously damaging to very powerful people, and an audience that was ready for proof of their suspicions of political/corporate/media corruption. This makes him a massive target.
- quink 9y ago
  I published my own list on reddit a while ago of the reasons. And not a single media mention, the entire change in perception was either through Wikileaks’ actions and words, entirely through reading mostly their own Twitter. Edit, found it: Some of the reasons why I don't like WikiLeaks: 1. Their cooperation with Roger Stone: "Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be." 2. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?" 3. Fueling the whole utterly bizarre 'spirit cooking' thing. The world's most pre-eminent performance artist invites the brother of the campaign manager of a presidential candidate for dinner? I'm sure that the degrees of separation to fucking Trump are shorter than that, but no, Hillary is literally the devil. And the whole 'election is rigged' thing with "Trump won't be allowed to win the election" 4. Calling out the Clinton Foundation for receiving money from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's wealthiest countries, and the Clinton Foundation is one of the world's more pre-eminent charities. They have many other donors and Saudi money goes many other places. And the Saudi royal family numbers in the tens of thousands. Sure, some of them will be involved with ISIS. But seriously. 5. "WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so. 6. The RT/WikiLeaks connection 7. Leaking Clinton library records. The chilling effect here is insane. 8. Hitchens, back in 2010: "The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda." Almost entirely WikiLeaks themselves, posted before the election of Trump even, no colouring in of my opinion by the lamestream media.
colordrops 9y ago
It seems the CIA and State Department succeeded at their objective of making Wikileaks irrelevant. Do you have any evidence at all of him being a Russian stooge? Most of the American public has become State Department stooges.
- lurr 9y ago
  They did it themselves by showing bias in the US elections. He doesn't need to be a russian stooge to have credibility drop to the level of fox news.
rdtsc 9y ago
Wait, how is he a Russian government stooge again?
- mankash666 9y ago
  Ever wondered why wiki leaks never published a damning post on Russia? Or why they chose to attack Hillary and not Trump. Or why they facilitated Snowden's passage to Russia? Or why Sweden dropped the case once Trump became president
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Or why Sweden dropped the case once Trump became president Did you just insinuate the government of Sweden is a front for Russia?
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      I think the insinuation was that the Swedish charges were on the behest of American executive pressure, which ceased once the American president changed.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    Does it publish a lot about Hungary or Greece, does it mean he's a Hungarian agent? Well Snowden is probably safer in Russia out of all the other places. US is probably not going to render him out of there without a major incident. Is Snowden a Russian agent? Ok besides Hillary who isn't a Russian agent... Not sure why he didn't criticize Trump. Trump is probably getting enough scrutiny as is? I remember hearing about how many scoops of ice-cream he ate or how long he shook Macron's hand. I am guessing if someone handed him a pile of Trump's emails he would publish it.
22837 9y ago
The only accusation still pending is that, with full knowledge that the young woman would never consent to unprotected sex, he initiated unprotected sex with her while she was asleep, and therefore unable to consent. The prosecutors have physical evidence of unprotected sex recovered from the rape kit. They have testimony from a long term ex-boyfriend that they never had unprotected sex, and that he can't imagine her ever consenting to it. They have testimony from another woman Assange slept with earlier that week who claims that, while she wasn't raped, Assange really pressed (forcefully) the issue of not using a condom. Given the circumstances, it seems like a reasonably strong case. Deserving of a trial, at a minimum.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  Are you sure? From Wikipedia: > On 19 May 2017, the Swedish authorities dropped their investigation against Assange, claiming they could not expect the Ecuadorian Embassy to communicate reliably with Assange with respect to the case. Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny officially revoked his arrest warrant, but said the investigation could still be resumed if Assange visited Sweden before August 2020. "We are not making any pronouncement about guilt", she said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_assault_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_... I don't know much about it, but I thought he was worried that the UK would extradite him to the US for whatever reason they can manufacture. Also, I'm not so sure about some of those facts you listed about the case. I saw a TV show about it, and the Swedish rape laws sound very odd, if I remember correctly a woman can consent at the time, then subsequently (the next day) can revoke consent, and that's rape under their law.
justAnotherNET 9y ago
Did you change it, or did external actors? Consider your sources of information.
raguuu 9y ago
When the whole American mass media wants to frame you on something because of politics, so be it. He has a history of exposing Putins regime wrongdoings, especially the murder of Anna. The man was destroyed because your democrats didn't want and need him anymore, before the very same outlets praised him as hero despite some questionable leaks that worked against your security.

convery 9y ago

So, he leaks Russian government secrets while working for them? Seems legit.

dragonwriter 9y ago
If you mean, when you say “legit”, “a common—cliché, even—method for a intelligence service to have their agent demonstrate bogus bona fide in order to either establish credibility or obscure their reporting relationship”, then, yes, I'd say it sounds “legit”.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  Truth is lies, lies is truth. How can anyone ever be legit?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
travmatt 9y ago
By leaking do you mean censoring emails showing Russian bank transfers to Syrian banks, then treatening reporters who actually report on it?[0] Or his tv deal with RT?[1] Or his tacit admission to Pussy Riot he works for Putin?[2] Or his failure to deliver on promised Russian leaks?[3] Or how he turned down Russia related leaks? [4] Or, my favorite, the time that he tried to discredit the panama papers showing Putin's hiding of wealth , decrying it as a CIA plot. Or are we just talking about the clearly timed leaks of Clinton emails every time Trumps campaign seemed in jeopardy? I can probably be convinced that Assange isn't just a Russian operative, but to just act like he believes in 'radical transparency' or doesn't have shady connections is laughable at this point. [0]https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-reporters-syria-russia-emails https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-... [1]http://bigthink.com/think-tank/julian-assange-to-host-talk-show-on-russia-today http://bigthink.com/think-tank/julian-assange-to-host-talk-s... [2]https://www.thedailybeast.com/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokno-julian-assange-is-connected-with-the-russian-government https://www.thedailybeast.com/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokno-juli... [3]https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-r... [4]http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
- serf 9y ago
  >Or his tv deal with RT?[1] I'm getting tired of that one. I don't have a dog in this race, and have little opinion on Assange's actions, but media opportunities are media opportunities. I have absolutely no trouble considering RT and their opinion to be spun, but I don't automatically associate Neil deGrasse Tyson with the opinions of Fox News or Bill Maher for simply being a guest and using the media opportunity to speak to an audience. RT spins things. BBC spins things. NYT spins things. Fox spins things. MSNBC spins things, it should be no surprise that media outlets, most especially ones funded by a nation state, have a hard bias. Serious question : if Assange was seeking a media soapbox to sit on top of, what other network choices did he have, being implicated in a feud with western agencies?
  - travmatt 9y ago
    You don’t see any logical inconsistency in saying that being paid by Putin doesn’t imply that Assange works for him? Besides the fact that I see quite a difference between RT and the other outlets you’ve mentioned (I don’t remember multiple journalists quitting from those other organizations because they were ‘being used to spread propaganda’), my answer was to show the multitudes of questionable connections and even more questionable judgements can’t just be reduced down to something that is conveniently dismissed.
plugger 9y ago
Yea, his thorough reporting on Anna Politkovskaya's murder really supports your statement. /s

davidw 9y ago

I wonder what their angle is on all this. Give him a place to run to? Silence him to keep him from spilling any beans about collusion with Trump campaign? Ignore him?

russianbandit 9y ago

He managed, or the media that you consume managed?

quink 9y ago
While I can’t speak for OP, in my case it’s none of the media I consumed that changed the tide, and all WikiLeaks themselves.

cmelbye 9y ago

> It's quite impressive how he's managed to change my perception of him and wikileaks from 'champions of freedom-of-information / free speech' to 'russian government stooge' over the last few years. I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them. He had information that was seriously damaging to very powerful people, and an audience that was ready for proof of their suspicions of political/corporate/media corruption. This makes him a massive target.

quink 9y ago
I published my own list on reddit a while ago of the reasons. And not a single media mention, the entire change in perception was either through Wikileaks’ actions and words, entirely through reading mostly their own Twitter. Edit, found it: Some of the reasons why I don't like WikiLeaks: 1. Their cooperation with Roger Stone: "Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be." 2. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?" 3. Fueling the whole utterly bizarre 'spirit cooking' thing. The world's most pre-eminent performance artist invites the brother of the campaign manager of a presidential candidate for dinner? I'm sure that the degrees of separation to fucking Trump are shorter than that, but no, Hillary is literally the devil. And the whole 'election is rigged' thing with "Trump won't be allowed to win the election" 4. Calling out the Clinton Foundation for receiving money from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's wealthiest countries, and the Clinton Foundation is one of the world's more pre-eminent charities. They have many other donors and Saudi money goes many other places. And the Saudi royal family numbers in the tens of thousands. Sure, some of them will be involved with ISIS. But seriously. 5. "WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so. 6. The RT/WikiLeaks connection 7. Leaking Clinton library records. The chilling effect here is insane. 8. Hitchens, back in 2010: "The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda." Almost entirely WikiLeaks themselves, posted before the election of Trump even, no colouring in of my opinion by the lamestream media.

colordrops 9y ago

It seems the CIA and State Department succeeded at their objective of making Wikileaks irrelevant. Do you have any evidence at all of him being a Russian stooge? Most of the American public has become State Department stooges.

lurr 9y ago
They did it themselves by showing bias in the US elections. He doesn't need to be a russian stooge to have credibility drop to the level of fox news.

rdtsc 9y ago

Wait, how is he a Russian government stooge again?

mankash666 9y ago
Ever wondered why wiki leaks never published a damning post on Russia? Or why they chose to attack Hillary and not Trump. Or why they facilitated Snowden's passage to Russia? Or why Sweden dropped the case once Trump became president
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Or why Sweden dropped the case once Trump became president Did you just insinuate the government of Sweden is a front for Russia?
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    I think the insinuation was that the Swedish charges were on the behest of American executive pressure, which ceased once the American president changed.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Does it publish a lot about Hungary or Greece, does it mean he's a Hungarian agent? Well Snowden is probably safer in Russia out of all the other places. US is probably not going to render him out of there without a major incident. Is Snowden a Russian agent? Ok besides Hillary who isn't a Russian agent... Not sure why he didn't criticize Trump. Trump is probably getting enough scrutiny as is? I remember hearing about how many scoops of ice-cream he ate or how long he shook Macron's hand. I am guessing if someone handed him a pile of Trump's emails he would publish it.

22837 9y ago

The only accusation still pending is that, with full knowledge that the young woman would never consent to unprotected sex, he initiated unprotected sex with her while she was asleep, and therefore unable to consent. The prosecutors have physical evidence of unprotected sex recovered from the rape kit. They have testimony from a long term ex-boyfriend that they never had unprotected sex, and that he can't imagine her ever consenting to it. They have testimony from another woman Assange slept with earlier that week who claims that, while she wasn't raped, Assange really pressed (forcefully) the issue of not using a condom. Given the circumstances, it seems like a reasonably strong case. Deserving of a trial, at a minimum.

brokenmachine 9y ago
Are you sure? From Wikipedia: > On 19 May 2017, the Swedish authorities dropped their investigation against Assange, claiming they could not expect the Ecuadorian Embassy to communicate reliably with Assange with respect to the case. Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny officially revoked his arrest warrant, but said the investigation could still be resumed if Assange visited Sweden before August 2020. "We are not making any pronouncement about guilt", she said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_assault_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_... I don't know much about it, but I thought he was worried that the UK would extradite him to the US for whatever reason they can manufacture. Also, I'm not so sure about some of those facts you listed about the case. I saw a TV show about it, and the Swedish rape laws sound very odd, if I remember correctly a woman can consent at the time, then subsequently (the next day) can revoke consent, and that's rape under their law.

justAnotherNET 9y ago

Did you change it, or did external actors? Consider your sources of information.

raguuu 9y ago

When the whole American mass media wants to frame you on something because of politics, so be it. He has a history of exposing Putins regime wrongdoings, especially the murder of Anna. The man was destroyed because your democrats didn't want and need him anymore, before the very same outlets praised him as hero despite some questionable leaks that worked against your security.