7 ms·
That's not a likely explanation when it comes to Assange. The Guardian has been terrible, and even its previous star reporter Glenn Greenwald (who won them a Pu
by k1m 7y ago
That's not a likely explanation when it comes to Assange. The Guardian has been terrible, and even its previous star reporter Glenn Greenwald (who won them a Pulitzer on the Snowden reporting) has been extremely critical. See for example https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua...
Brought up again earlier this month: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296
That piece of fake news from the Guardian has been shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook.
I don't agree that honest reporting on Assange simply won't get clicks. But sensational fake news certainly does.
- foldr 7y agoWhat makes you so sure it's fake news? No-one really knows for sure whether or not that meeting took place.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]