6 ms·

I find it incredible that it took the Guardian 7 years to decide to write this article. EDIT: In fact, it's not even by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece by

by cyphar 7y ago

I find it incredible that it took the Guardian 7 years to decide to write this article. EDIT: In fact, it's not even by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece by an ex-Guardian editor who was (at least implicitly) part of the smear campaign against Julian Assange "back in the day". Let's not forget that the Guardian sent Julian Assange a basket with soap and socks when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy[1]. What kind of a message does that send? They also didn't tell anyone involved in the Snowden revelations when GCHQ forced them to destroy their copies. They also (through their tehnical incompetence) leaked documents that WikiLeaks had not published, then blamed WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for the disclosure. Not to mention the ludicrously false and harmful articles they published about him meeting Manafort and co-ordinating disclosures with the Trump campaign alongside many other government puff pieces disguised as "journalism". Now, all of a sudden, they feel it's a good idea to try to help him. It's too late for that. The right time to try to help him was 7 years ago. Doing it now is for the birds, it's pure political theater so they can pretend (in 15 years) that they were "on the right side of history". Absolute bullshit. Then again, saying something is better than nothing. Here in Australia there is no public discussion about Julian Assange (an Australian citizen and journalist being tried under US terrorism laws). Even more ironic is that we recently had a bit of a "freedom of the press" scuffle because the ABC was raided by the Australian Federal Police because of some coverage from 2017 over Australian Army war crimes. I find it incredible that nobody mentioned Julian. At all. What an absolute disgrace today's press is. [1]: https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=5255 https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=5255

creaghpatr 7y ago
And in fact, the Guardian published a blatently false story about Manafort holding "secret talks" with Assange, which they incredibly have still not retracted, despite literally zero evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
- spikels 7y ago
  That story was clearly fake. The Guardian reporter and his source have both proven to be unreliable in the past, no other newspaper could confirm the claims and the Special Council looked into it and found nothing. And the Guardian has now “re-establish[ed] links” with British military/intelligence after their breakup post-Snowden: https://mobile.twitter.com/DCKennard/status/1138493594728304640 https://mobile.twitter.com/DCKennard/status/1138493594728304... Much of our media now coordinates and sources stories from national intelligence services. This has been true with some of the biggest stories of the past few years - many of which failed to pan out. So in some important cases our “news” has been literally government propaganda.
k1m 7y ago
Agree, the Guardian has been one of the most vocal papers in attacking and ridiculing Assange. We collected some of this output here https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ Especially damning now with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture describing his treatment as psychological torture: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but your web site seems like a bit of nonsense veiled in a guise that it's out to present "the truth". Many of the linked tweets don't resolve, and the rest of the web site appears to be purely a Greenwald support group in his seeming vendetta against his former employer. The site also proclaims [paraphrasing] "do not trust the Guardian—read our write-ups of the same subjects instead". I can't take that any more seriously than "corporate-state media". I should add, if corporate-sponsored journalism outlets is a problem for your group, then I suggest you also drop The Intercept: Financial backing for The Intercept was provided by Pierre Omidyar, the eBay founder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
  - cyphar 7y ago
    I would argue that the only good journalism done by The Intercept is by Glenn Greenwald. As for the rest of your comment, the general thrust of the page is accurate -- it is incredibly well-known that the Guardian has had a bone to pick with Julian Assange for years. Pretending that is not the case is an example of being intentionally misleading or deciding to ignore facts which disagree with your views.
    - 52-6F-62 7y ago
      I'm not picking on Greenwald, to be clear. I also didn't say that they were inaccurate about their pointing out of the Guardian's treatment of Assange. I'd argue that the Guardian never hid it. Also, that media literacy matters and you shouldn't treat every outlet as a single voice. It's terribly inaccurate and, I'd say, in bad faith to do so—as long as said outlet has a general track record for accuracy. Or, even more common, many outlets may have an injected column by interests, but they do not operate so unified as the page presumes. I didn't read into the articles they've pointed out in any detail, but I'd pay more attention to who is writing them than painting an entire organization with one brush. That's a fools game. And likely to end up in reciprocal treatment. Also to note—I wasn't just commenting on the page, but on the rest of the web site which maintains a theme of celebrating the Intercept above all other outlets. It also comes across to me that GP's comment is derailing the nascent subject.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> a basket with soap and socks Does this have some cultural significance? It a symbolic snub of some kind? The speaker in the video says that they sent him this care package and then pauses and stares into space like it's the most obviously terrible thing they could have done and needs no further comment. I don't get it?
- devoply 7y ago
  If I had to guess it's something (socks) you might give to a homeless person.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - cyphar 7y ago
    No, the problem is that it is literally the least useful form of "help" they could've given someone who is facing political persecution from the most powerful government on Earth. It's basically a really underhanded way of saying "you're on your own on this one".
  - hm10 7y ago
    We're not going to help you get out, so please accept these token socks and soap because you're on your own and you will need them in there.
- cyphar 7y ago
  If you have a friend who broke their ankle and is in hospital overnight, you send a basket with soap and socks (or more likely, flowers). If you are the head of a news organisation and have a fellow journalist (who you've worked with in the past and gave you "the biggest scoop in 30 years") and is currently facing political persecution by the most powerful government on earth, you send lawyers to help him get out of the situation and cover it endlessly until something is done about it. As Jacob Appelbaum said in the video I linked, it's an example of not treating such a serious situation seriously. So yes -- it was a snub in the sense that it was literally the least useful form of "help" they could've given. Julian didn't need symbolic help. He needed actual help, and the Guardian left him out to dry (and then proceeded to publish countless articles smearing him -- including flat-out lying as in the "he met with Manafort" case). Heck, WikiLeaks sent one of their lawyers to help Snowden in Hong Kong when he got in trouble (and bought him plane tickets and the rest of it -- even trying to rent a private jet to get him out of Russia while he was stuck in the airport) -- and they didn't even have anything to do with publishing the Snowden revelations.
Roonerelli 7y ago
What do you mean by "It's not even an article by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece" The author of the piece, Alan Rusbridger, is the Editor-in-chief of the Guardian
- cyphar 7y ago
  Ah, I didn't look up the author's credentials -- I will edit my comment. Often opinion pieces in newspapers are not the same as articles written by journalists and published as fully-fledged articles (usually they have an implicit caveat of "this is not the official opinion of $newspaper").
  - teh_klev 7y ago
    I don't think you need to change anything. Rusbridger is no longer editor of the Guardian (he left in 2015). https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/aug/26/alan-rusbridger-profile https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/aug/26/alan-rusbridg...
    - cyphar 7y ago
      I've edited it back -- though whether or not the article is by someone who works at the Guardian is the least important point I'm making.
- teh_klev 7y ago
  Rusbridger moved on in 2015. Also whilst editor he was complicit in the smear campaign against Assange which the Guardian has been running since seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
binarray2000 7y ago
The Guardian also saw an increase of their circulation - in a dying industry - during the time when they've published WikiLeaks and Snowden documents. Which translates into an increase of ad spending and consequently revenue.
tyingq 7y ago
I suspect they are responding because the recently added on espionage charges do pose a threat to journalism. The earlier, more narrow charges, didn't really mean much for journalists.
- cyphar 7y ago
  The accusations were only made public a few months ago (with some leaks less than a year ago pointing to them). If they feel so strongly that he's a journalist they should've been saying something for the past 7 years. Instead they've been publicly smearing him, and in some cases flat-out lying. Assange predicted publicly for many years that the US was going to indict him under the Espionage Act, and now that it's happening everyone seems to be pretending that "we couldn't possibly have seen this coming!". I was still a high-school student in 2012 and I could see it as clear as day. I refuse to believe that any reasonable adult would be so naive to have not seen this coming.
threatofrain 7y ago
Instead of blaming the press like they failed you as your life mentor, I’d also argue the actions of the media imply the disinterest of the people. The press is largely a mirror, just like marketing — it’s all based on what people think will sell to you. More articles on math? That doesn’t sell.
- k1m 7y ago
  The press plays a much more important role when it comes to power. Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky is the classic text on the propaganda role of the press. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Cons... This old BBC interview with Noam Chomsky about the topic is also illuminating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow
- cyphar 7y ago
  I would suggest you read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. The media has an enormous amount of power in shaping public opinion, and in particular also has a massive amount of control over the Overton window. There are countless examples of this happening very publicly -- just in the past decade.
ataturk 7y ago
So sad. Everything we are living through is "1984" in real life. Journalism, please break free of the statism and embrace your true role! When Trump got elected, everyone in the media lost their collective minds. I mean, really, Jalopnik? You dolts! You were supposed to maintain distance, not gotten involved, not backed a horse at all. You failed at that completely! Now you will suffer the consequences for it you Pravda fools.

by cyphar 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago

And in fact, the Guardian published a blatently false story about Manafort holding "secret talks" with Assange, which they incredibly have still not retracted, despite literally zero evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

spikels 7y ago
That story was clearly fake. The Guardian reporter and his source have both proven to be unreliable in the past, no other newspaper could confirm the claims and the Special Council looked into it and found nothing. And the Guardian has now “re-establish[ed] links” with British military/intelligence after their breakup post-Snowden: https://mobile.twitter.com/DCKennard/status/1138493594728304640 https://mobile.twitter.com/DCKennard/status/1138493594728304... Much of our media now coordinates and sources stories from national intelligence services. This has been true with some of the biggest stories of the past few years - many of which failed to pan out. So in some important cases our “news” has been literally government propaganda.

k1m 7y ago

Agree, the Guardian has been one of the most vocal papers in attacking and ridiculing Assange. We collected some of this output here https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ Especially damning now with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture describing his treatment as psychological torture: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

52-6F-62 7y ago
I'm sorry, but your web site seems like a bit of nonsense veiled in a guise that it's out to present "the truth". Many of the linked tweets don't resolve, and the rest of the web site appears to be purely a Greenwald support group in his seeming vendetta against his former employer. The site also proclaims [paraphrasing] "do not trust the Guardian—read our write-ups of the same subjects instead". I can't take that any more seriously than "corporate-state media". I should add, if corporate-sponsored journalism outlets is a problem for your group, then I suggest you also drop The Intercept: Financial backing for The Intercept was provided by Pierre Omidyar, the eBay founder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
- cyphar 7y ago
  I would argue that the only good journalism done by The Intercept is by Glenn Greenwald. As for the rest of your comment, the general thrust of the page is accurate -- it is incredibly well-known that the Guardian has had a bone to pick with Julian Assange for years. Pretending that is not the case is an example of being intentionally misleading or deciding to ignore facts which disagree with your views.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    I'm not picking on Greenwald, to be clear. I also didn't say that they were inaccurate about their pointing out of the Guardian's treatment of Assange. I'd argue that the Guardian never hid it. Also, that media literacy matters and you shouldn't treat every outlet as a single voice. It's terribly inaccurate and, I'd say, in bad faith to do so—as long as said outlet has a general track record for accuracy. Or, even more common, many outlets may have an injected column by interests, but they do not operate so unified as the page presumes. I didn't read into the articles they've pointed out in any detail, but I'd pay more attention to who is writing them than painting an entire organization with one brush. That's a fools game. And likely to end up in reciprocal treatment. Also to note—I wasn't just commenting on the page, but on the rest of the web site which maintains a theme of celebrating the Intercept above all other outlets. It also comes across to me that GP's comment is derailing the nascent subject.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> a basket with soap and socks Does this have some cultural significance? It a symbolic snub of some kind? The speaker in the video says that they sent him this care package and then pauses and stares into space like it's the most obviously terrible thing they could have done and needs no further comment. I don't get it?

devoply 7y ago
If I had to guess it's something (socks) you might give to a homeless person.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cyphar 7y ago
  No, the problem is that it is literally the least useful form of "help" they could've given someone who is facing political persecution from the most powerful government on Earth. It's basically a really underhanded way of saying "you're on your own on this one".
- hm10 7y ago
  We're not going to help you get out, so please accept these token socks and soap because you're on your own and you will need them in there.
cyphar 7y ago
If you have a friend who broke their ankle and is in hospital overnight, you send a basket with soap and socks (or more likely, flowers). If you are the head of a news organisation and have a fellow journalist (who you've worked with in the past and gave you "the biggest scoop in 30 years") and is currently facing political persecution by the most powerful government on earth, you send lawyers to help him get out of the situation and cover it endlessly until something is done about it. As Jacob Appelbaum said in the video I linked, it's an example of not treating such a serious situation seriously. So yes -- it was a snub in the sense that it was literally the least useful form of "help" they could've given. Julian didn't need symbolic help. He needed actual help, and the Guardian left him out to dry (and then proceeded to publish countless articles smearing him -- including flat-out lying as in the "he met with Manafort" case). Heck, WikiLeaks sent one of their lawyers to help Snowden in Hong Kong when he got in trouble (and bought him plane tickets and the rest of it -- even trying to rent a private jet to get him out of Russia while he was stuck in the airport) -- and they didn't even have anything to do with publishing the Snowden revelations.

Roonerelli 7y ago

What do you mean by "It's not even an article by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece" The author of the piece, Alan Rusbridger, is the Editor-in-chief of the Guardian

cyphar 7y ago
Ah, I didn't look up the author's credentials -- I will edit my comment. Often opinion pieces in newspapers are not the same as articles written by journalists and published as fully-fledged articles (usually they have an implicit caveat of "this is not the official opinion of $newspaper").
- teh_klev 7y ago
  I don't think you need to change anything. Rusbridger is no longer editor of the Guardian (he left in 2015). https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/aug/26/alan-rusbridger-profile https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/aug/26/alan-rusbridg...
  - cyphar 7y ago
    I've edited it back -- though whether or not the article is by someone who works at the Guardian is the least important point I'm making.
teh_klev 7y ago
Rusbridger moved on in 2015. Also whilst editor he was complicit in the smear campaign against Assange which the Guardian has been running since seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

binarray2000 7y ago

The Guardian also saw an increase of their circulation - in a dying industry - during the time when they've published WikiLeaks and Snowden documents. Which translates into an increase of ad spending and consequently revenue.

tyingq 7y ago

I suspect they are responding because the recently added on espionage charges do pose a threat to journalism. The earlier, more narrow charges, didn't really mean much for journalists.

cyphar 7y ago
The accusations were only made public a few months ago (with some leaks less than a year ago pointing to them). If they feel so strongly that he's a journalist they should've been saying something for the past 7 years. Instead they've been publicly smearing him, and in some cases flat-out lying. Assange predicted publicly for many years that the US was going to indict him under the Espionage Act, and now that it's happening everyone seems to be pretending that "we couldn't possibly have seen this coming!". I was still a high-school student in 2012 and I could see it as clear as day. I refuse to believe that any reasonable adult would be so naive to have not seen this coming.

threatofrain 7y ago

Instead of blaming the press like they failed you as your life mentor, I’d also argue the actions of the media imply the disinterest of the people. The press is largely a mirror, just like marketing — it’s all based on what people think will sell to you. More articles on math? That doesn’t sell.

k1m 7y ago
The press plays a much more important role when it comes to power. Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky is the classic text on the propaganda role of the press. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Cons... This old BBC interview with Noam Chomsky about the topic is also illuminating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow
cyphar 7y ago
I would suggest you read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. The media has an enormous amount of power in shaping public opinion, and in particular also has a massive amount of control over the Overton window. There are countless examples of this happening very publicly -- just in the past decade.

ataturk 7y ago

So sad. Everything we are living through is "1984" in real life. Journalism, please break free of the statism and embrace your true role! When Trump got elected, everyone in the media lost their collective minds. I mean, really, Jalopnik? You dolts! You were supposed to maintain distance, not gotten involved, not backed a horse at all. You failed at that completely! Now you will suffer the consequences for it you Pravda fools.