12 ms·

Wikileaks has a faultless record. They’ve never had to retract a publication. Assange, like him not not, was a reporter, who reported uncomfortable facts about

Wikileaks has a faultless record. They’ve never had to retract a publication. Assange, like him not not, was a reporter, who reported uncomfortable facts about the military and our ruling class. He is being punished, tortured really for this “crime”. He has been endlessly and baselessly slandered. All that alleged bad behaviour while he was imprisoned in the embassy ... funny how there’s been no footage of it, despite the fact that he was under 24/7 surveillance! And these rape charges, clearly also designed to tarnish his name, now finally exposed as a fiasco. Many newspapers had huge scoops thanks to Wikileaks, but have now turned on them. A particularly striking example is the supposedly liberal Guardian. Journalists everywhere should be afraid as this sets a dangerous precedent for all of them.

tptacek 7y ago
Wikileaks does not have a faultless record. For example: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel...
- malvosenior 7y ago
  That's an example of "like him or not", it's not a retraction and nothing published was false.
  - geofft 7y ago
    That's a very strange definition of "faultless record." Shall we elevate the Ashley Madison password leakers to the same level of folk hero? What about a VPN that spies on its users - they never publish anything false, so any persecution is unfair, right?
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      We're talking about two different things. The grandparent said that Assange hasn't had to make any retractions and hasn't published any false info. This is undeniably true. They also said "like him or not". Not everyone likes the outcome of his leaks. Many do. Many like some, but not others. Regardless, he's had a major impact on politics based on very true information Wikileaks has made available to the public. If the Ashley Madison password leakers were helping expose corruption in the government, I'm sure some would view them as folk heroes too.
      - idlewords 7y ago
        The grandparent said Wikileaks has a faultless record, which they don't. The rest is special pleading.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        The grandparent very clearly defined what they mean by that. Assange hasn't had to make any retractions.
        zepto 7y ago
        But not a faultless record.
        officialjunk 7y ago
        Can you name another news source that has made no retractions in the past 13 years?
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        Since when does no retractions mean a faultless record? That just means you stand with all of the bullshit you spew, not that you're a fully truthful source. Like when Wikileaks was perpetuating the nonsense Seth Rich conspiracy as cover.
        Lammy 7y ago
        I believe what they’re trying to say is that the context clues in the top-level comment tell us that the comment author defines “faultless record” as “no retractions”. You, me, or any other person can have a different definition of “faultless”, but that is just making conversation break down when we’re all replying to one particular definition that seemed (to me at least) clearly spelled out.
        7y ago
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    It's a contradiction to the claim he simply acted as a reporter: reporters don't release private information concerning no matter of public concern of people who are in no respect public figures.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I think misrepresenting the contents in a dump in such a way as happened here would qualify as something worthy of a retraction.
jacobush 7y ago
We need to be very exact in these matters. The problem with the rape charges is that very, very likely he would have been convicted under Swedish law, which is very strict on what counts as rape. (If proof could be produced.) What is a farce is how the case went on and on, and how the plaintiffs didn't even seem to want to hang on the to case, and how a crime which is routinely buried in cold cases by Swedish Police suddenly became the top priority of the state (country, for you US-people) prosecutor. And so on. There is a kernel of truth. Everything else is a farce. If we don't acknowledge the kernel, we risk debating the merits of the case, when there is the political machine around it which merits most interest. (In global politics, not in the personal lives of the plaintiff, I have great respect for them too.)
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  Going on the record of being a victim of sexual abuse isn't easy and being subject to harassment by the press, WL zealots and other loonies could've just been enough to warrant that the victims no longer cared enough about justice. They've both been on the record saying that they only wanted to pressure Assange to get tested for STDs since he forced himself on them without protection. I assume they didn't want this to blow up the way it did.
- raindeer3 7y ago
  It never became a top priority for the Swedish state. But since he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy the investigation just dragged on. This was never a high priority case other than for the press. And as soon as he could be inteterogated the investigation was closed. He is and has been mistreated in may ways, but the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden was not part of some US lead conspiracy against him.
  - cies 7y ago
    > the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden was not part of some US lead conspiracy against him. What makes you so sure of this?
  - jacobush 7y ago
    The public prosecutor can press charges, which is what happened here. They don't for a boatload of would be cases. With Assange, they did, which is not exactly true to form.
anongraddebt 7y ago
I used to be a fairly strong supporter of our military. Not blanket support (since there are always exceptions to anything), and I wasn't super enthusiastic/patriotic like some are, but in general I had a pretty positive view. My uncle is a general in the Air Force, all three of my grandfathers fought in WW2 (my Dad's biological father was killed by a drunk driver when he was 7), etc etc. I have pictures of my grandfather standing under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris with the tank squad he commanded. Wikileaks helped change my mind quite a bit. Among the many things they published, there was one video that really stood out: POV camera from a apache as the pilot releases a missile into a group of civilians that included a number of journalists. Things like this couldn't be ignored, because of Wikileaks record. You couldn't start off down a path of rationalizing, etc. They made you face up to the ground-level reality. I still support and appreciate the people who serve in our armed forces, but thanks to Wikileaks I have a much more nuanced,skeptical, and (I believe) more appropriate view.
- banads 7y ago
  >They made you face up to the ground-level reality. The news media has consciously hidden and censored the ground level reality of war since Vietnam, where they made the mistake of showing families the graphic ground level realities of war in color while they ate TV dinners in their living rooms. This created what was perhaps the greatest anti war sentiment in US history -- it was not sustainable. Meanwhile Hollywood perpetually pushed out war and action movies glorifying violence while also censoring the disgusting reality of it.
  - dustingetz 7y ago
    why was anti war sentiment not sustainable for tv news stations?
    - iwintermute 7y ago
      because "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
- MiroF 7y ago
multjoy 7y ago
> funny how there’s been no footage of it, despite the fact that he was under 24/7 surveillance! There wouldn’t be. It’s an embassy. The met aren’t daft enough to do anything other than watch the front door.
- nicehat 7y ago
  A Spanish company were hired to spy on Assange's meetings - going so far as to install streaming cameras in the ladies room. https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_65... > After the installation of new video cameras at the beginning of December 2017, Morales requested that his technicians install an external streaming access point in the same area so that all of the recordings could be accessed instantly by the United States. To do this, he requested three channels for access: “one for Ecuador, another for us and another for X,” according to mails sent at the time to his colleagues. When one of the technicians asked to contact “the Americans” to explain the way that they should access some of the spying systems installed in the embassy, Morales would always be evasive with his answers. > Morales ordered his workers to install microphones in the embassy’s fire extinguishers and also in the women’s bathroom, where Assange’s lawyers, including the Spaniard Aitor Martínez and his closest collaborators, would meet for fear of being spied on.
seattle_spring 7y ago
Faultless record? Absolutely not. They will support /r/conspiracy's lunacy at all costs as long as it somehow ties to Hillary Clinton. This one[1] was the most ridiculous claim they supported, but I'm sure someone who cares more could find dozens or even hundreds more claims made by WikiLeaks that are nothing more than deranged Dale Gribble-esque rants. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange...
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  Please never in good faith cite snopes as a reference.
  - seattle_spring 7y ago
    Would you mind going through the contents of the article I posted from them and finding pieces of inaccuracy?
- MiroF 7y ago
  Sorry - were the claims that David Soloff was behind T&C actually made by Wikileaks? Your link provides no evidence of that fact that I see, and from a brief perusal of the primary sources, I don't see Wikileaks ever making that claim either.
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  Disregarding the fact that Snopes is a very disreputable organization (e.g. there's a reason Facebook fired them as fact-checkers), your reference doesn't even back up what you say. Is it possible you're the one engaging in conspiracy theories?
  - noname120 7y ago
    The official narrative is that they withdrew from the program[1]. If you have contradicting evidence, please provide it when making such a claim. This community doesn't like broad claims without evidence. [1] https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snopes-fb-partnership-ends/ https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snopes-fb-partnership-ends...
gamblor956 7y ago
Today I learned that publishing numerous documents entirely it partially forged by Russian Intelligence counts as a faultless record.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  What was forged by Russian Intelligence?
  - jml78 7y ago
    You do know that Wikileaks was on the verge of releasing damaging info on Putin. Then magically it never happened after Assange was visited by Russian agents. Sorry they are nothing more than a propaganda machine of Russia at this point. They went political in the last election choosing to keep GOP documents silenced and release the DNC data. I have no issue if Wikileaks wasn’t playing political games. But they are.....
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      This is not an answer to the question that malvosenior asked.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Even if you believe that, it doesn’t answer my question. What information was forged by Russia?
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      They did not keep GOP documents silenced.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      You do know... Please, no conspiracy theories.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Oh? What was forged?
fenomas 7y ago
The most detailed, nuanced account of Assange I've seen is this one[0] by Andrew O'Hagan (an author hired to ghostwrite Assange's autobiography who spent a year or so in and out of his orbit). And it's hard to square that account with the image of Assange as a journalist who's being persecuted for the truths he's shared. Though O'Hagan is sympathetic in many ways he doesn't sugarcoat anything, and I came away with the impression that Assange is the author of a great deal of his own woes. (Among other things, much of the account involves Assange lying pretty incessantly, even to his closest allies about petty dramas, so I now find it hard to take anything he's said at face value.) [0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghost... ---- Edit to add: there's a quoted exchange in the account, which now springs to mind every time I hear about Assange. > There are few subjects on which Julian would be reluctant to take what you might call a paternalistic position, but over Snowden, whom he’s never met but has chatted with and feels largely responsible for, he expressed a kind of irritable admiration. "Just how good is he?" I asked. > "He’s number nine," he said. > "In the world? Among computer hackers? And where are you?" > "I’m number three."
- SeanBoocock 7y ago
  Indeed, this is essential reading in its entirety. The image that emerges is one of a vain and duplicitous man who treats his projects as vehicles for self-aggrandizement. His poor character and lack of integrity are unbecoming in anyone who claims to speak truth to power.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    It's no secret that Assange is vain and an asshole. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been a coordinated campaign of character attack and punishment for revealing uncomfortable truths against him. Nor does it mean that he is deserving of what has happened
- cies 7y ago
  We're discussing the torture of a journalist in the west. Adn you bring up a story that you think he lied to often. Now I assume you are right and I think that stains his character. But, I think this is kind of hard to swallow at this point. I know you respond to someone else comment, and not directly to the story. But in this light i think it is not time to discuss if Assange lied at some point. The man deserves a fair trial, and some nobel prizes for the good stuff he did. Before Wikileaks we were some tin-foil hat /r/conspiracy readers. And now "deep state" a term you find in the MSM. Big progress necessary on the way to fix this mess, yet Assange's life got destroyed in the process.
chx 7y ago
What journalist? Assange is a Russian agent. Even previously there was no doubt but since Mueller this is cemented.
- Lammy 7y ago
  Declaring who is and is not a valid journalist is not a path we, or any society, should go down.
  - lisper 7y ago
    Declaring who is and is not a valid journalist is essential to democracy. The failure to distinguish journalism from propaganda is in no small measure responsible for the mess we're currently in.
    - Lammy 7y ago
      If we allow a precedent like that it will some day inevitably be turned on somebody you think speaks objective truth. The past few years have shown me there is no such thing.
      - lisper 7y ago
        I didn't say anything about how this distinction is to be made, only that it needs to be made somehow. And yes, I'm aware of the dangers of false positives. That's a smaller risk than doing nothing and allowing misinformation to propagate unfettered and unlabeled.
        Lammy 7y ago
        It is a fools' errand to think we will ever be able to get 100% of humanity to agree on objective truth, because there is no such thing. The only 'truth' is the truth of majority, and the only path forward for us as humans is to build a society that can contain, tolerate, and function in spite of all the icky fringe beliefs out there. Think of how many people there must be who are just as convinced as you are or I am that their version of reality is correct. Now think about what it would take to get you to change your mind on some of your deepest beliefs, if it's even possible. _Then_ multiply that problem hundreds of thousands of times over. We don't have enough time left as a species to sit here and argue until we declare one viewpoint "truth" and all the others "un-truth". It is more important for humanity as a species to come together and survive than it is for any individual viewpoint to be "right".
cies 7y ago
See what HKers are doing because they wanted to (initially) safe guard their reporters? See what the west here does to stop rather similar practices of which Assange happens to be at the receiving end? Very little. We let him die, and I include myself into "we". This is just abhorrent. And it seems we dont even know what to point our anger to, the US govt? The UK? The fucking-were-so-enlightended Swedish govt? Any (western) govt that fails to stand up for him? To stay in xmas spirit: Assange is the modern day Jesus of reporting dying for our freedom and our right te be informed of our sick and twisted govts. I'm angry now.
- kordlessagain 7y ago
  > See what HKers are doing because they wanted to (initially) safe guard their reporters? Psychological projection can be contagious, when used with blame: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-feelings/201104/shame-concealed-contagious-and-dangerous-emotion https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and...
tdcbfdct3 7y ago
> Wikileaks has a faultless record. How about this bullshit Steve Jobs AIDS diagnosis? https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hiv-2.jpg https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hi...
- MiroF 7y ago
  This is disingenuous. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_... Wikileaks explicitly noted: > Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value. Using Wayback machine, I can confirm that this text was associated with these images from the first moment that they were published on Wikileaks. Also, HIV isn't AIDS and you should keep that in mind.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    While investigating, I did find this though: https://compote.slate.com/images/6095c484-0c54-4ba2-9ac2-e876738257d4.jpg https://compote.slate.com/images/6095c484-0c54-4ba2-9ac2-e87... This is blatant antisemitism.
duelingjello 7y ago
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell Speaking truth to power is something the corporate-owned fourth estate no longer engages in, and instead discards civil discourse and individuals with integrity because reality is inconvenient compared to fanning the flames with phony-outrage clickbait, replacing it with corporate-led fascism and intolerance masquerading as liberalism. Here are just some of the heroes of freedom: - Phil Donahue (completely gave up a promising career) - Jesse Ventura - Cenk Uyghur * - Chris Hedges - Julian Assange - Chelsea Manning - Aaron Schwartz - John Kiriakou * - Daniel Ellsberg * - Gary Webb - Robert Parry * - Max Blumenthal * - Aaron Maté * - Lee Camp * - Jeremy Scahill * - Glenn Greenwald * * The few, lucky ones
- einpoklum 7y ago
  All of these have had important positive contributions, but don't idolize any of them. Some of them have adopted problematic positions (IMHO) on various issues or promoted political causes of state establishments. Some are dismissive or even defamatory of people with more radical political views than theirs. Some aren't and I only have good things to say about them, but the point is - we should always judge stories and commentaries by the merit and never fully trust someone even if their record is positive and impressive.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Some humans aren't perfect; film at eleven. I don't think any of the "trust the mainstream narrative" authoritarians ITT are comparing Assange to Aaron Maté. They love the pablum that Rachel Maddow feeds them, and they'll grasp at any irrational straw that could help them keep slurping it down.
- enjoiful 7y ago
  Can you tell me more about Jesse Ventura?
tasty_freeze 7y ago
It is possible to build a false narrative with nothing but true information. Say I put up a website that every day posted a story about a Jewish person who had been convicted of a financial crime. Say I promoted this site and built up a fan base. If every story was 100% true, nothing but real convictions. Would you say this is an honest, faultless website?
- selfishgene 7y ago
  Not unless you computed percentage of financial crimes committed by Jews as a percentage of total number of financial crimes committed in the United States. If we saw that this number was appreciably higher than 2%, then we could immediately draw the conclusion that the justice system in this country is biased against Jews, right? (This would be just like we do in the case of blacks when it comes to "more dangerous" crimes like assault, armed robbery, rape, and murder.)
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    Your point only reinforces mine -- a website presenting nothing but facts can still offer a false narrative; it takes more work to establish the true narrative. As for the subtext of your message, you seem to be doubtful that the justice system is biased black people. I have no doubt you are a smart person, so it baffles me why on a post about how complex issues need a broad and nuanced understanding you'd take this simple-minded sarcastic swipe. You appear to think that the social justice issue was determined simply based on the fact the black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than the general population, and political correctness demands that it be attributed to judicial bias. There is a lot of research supporting this bias; it isn't just a PC justification.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- einpoklum 7y ago
  It _is_ possible. Like how you're trying to build the narrative of Wikileaks having built such false narratives - which they haven't, to the best of my knowledge. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please link to it.
Traster 7y ago
>They’ve never had to retract a publication. Refusing to ever retract anything either means they're literally perfect. Fuck the New York Times, Guardian, BBC, Al Jareeza and every other news organisation that has ever existed. Or they refuse to retract ever, despite sometimes making mistakes.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Can you point to something non-factual that Wikileaks has published that you think should have been retracted?
zepto 7y ago
According to you then, RT also has a “faultless record”...
einpoklum 7y ago
Agree with you on all points, except for a slight nitpick: Assange was more of a news publisher than a reporter. That is, he didn't write news stories. We - informed internet users, not just journalists - should be very worried about his treatment and try to act to support him and Wikileaks. If you can't act yourself, do consider donating: https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/ https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/ (there might be other relevant avenues of donating, this is one of them)
notanalien 7y ago
This is a bit esoteric but Julian did criticize the NY Times UFO story in 12/15 and then deleted the tweet- https://imgur.com/a/1z3APkC https://imgur.com/a/1z3APkC It’s hard to verify he deleted it because his Twitter account has been deactivated. Just found it interesting because I think his original tweet was accurate but it was strange that he backtracked.
matsdb 7y ago
> Many newspapers had huge scoops thanks to Wikileaks, but have now turned on them. A particularly striking example is the supposedly liberal Guardian. There's a Norwegian conservative newspaper who (somehow) got access to all the cable gate documents [1], and benefited tremendously on it - but now won't speak up about how Julian Assange is being treated. (Sorry about the norwegian news article) [1] https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/politikk/2010/12/aftenposten-lurte-wikileaks-trill-rundt https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/politikk/2010/12/aftenposten...

tptacek 7y ago

Wikileaks does not have a faultless record. For example: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel...

malvosenior 7y ago
That's an example of "like him or not", it's not a retraction and nothing published was false.
- geofft 7y ago
  That's a very strange definition of "faultless record." Shall we elevate the Ashley Madison password leakers to the same level of folk hero? What about a VPN that spies on its users - they never publish anything false, so any persecution is unfair, right?
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    We're talking about two different things. The grandparent said that Assange hasn't had to make any retractions and hasn't published any false info. This is undeniably true. They also said "like him or not". Not everyone likes the outcome of his leaks. Many do. Many like some, but not others. Regardless, he's had a major impact on politics based on very true information Wikileaks has made available to the public. If the Ashley Madison password leakers were helping expose corruption in the government, I'm sure some would view them as folk heroes too.
    - idlewords 7y ago
      The grandparent said Wikileaks has a faultless record, which they don't. The rest is special pleading.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        The grandparent very clearly defined what they mean by that. Assange hasn't had to make any retractions.
        zepto 7y ago
        But not a faultless record.
        officialjunk 7y ago
        Can you name another news source that has made no retractions in the past 13 years?
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        Since when does no retractions mean a faultless record? That just means you stand with all of the bullshit you spew, not that you're a fully truthful source. Like when Wikileaks was perpetuating the nonsense Seth Rich conspiracy as cover.
        Lammy 7y ago
        I believe what they’re trying to say is that the context clues in the top-level comment tell us that the comment author defines “faultless record” as “no retractions”. You, me, or any other person can have a different definition of “faultless”, but that is just making conversation break down when we’re all replying to one particular definition that seemed (to me at least) clearly spelled out.
        7y ago
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  It's a contradiction to the claim he simply acted as a reporter: reporters don't release private information concerning no matter of public concern of people who are in no respect public figures.
shkkmo 7y ago
I think misrepresenting the contents in a dump in such a way as happened here would qualify as something worthy of a retraction.

jacobush 7y ago

We need to be very exact in these matters. The problem with the rape charges is that very, very likely he would have been convicted under Swedish law, which is very strict on what counts as rape. (If proof could be produced.) What is a farce is how the case went on and on, and how the plaintiffs didn't even seem to want to hang on the to case, and how a crime which is routinely buried in cold cases by Swedish Police suddenly became the top priority of the state (country, for you US-people) prosecutor. And so on. There is a kernel of truth. Everything else is a farce. If we don't acknowledge the kernel, we risk debating the merits of the case, when there is the political machine around it which merits most interest. (In global politics, not in the personal lives of the plaintiff, I have great respect for them too.)

jasonvorhe 7y ago
Going on the record of being a victim of sexual abuse isn't easy and being subject to harassment by the press, WL zealots and other loonies could've just been enough to warrant that the victims no longer cared enough about justice. They've both been on the record saying that they only wanted to pressure Assange to get tested for STDs since he forced himself on them without protection. I assume they didn't want this to blow up the way it did.
raindeer3 7y ago
It never became a top priority for the Swedish state. But since he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy the investigation just dragged on. This was never a high priority case other than for the press. And as soon as he could be inteterogated the investigation was closed. He is and has been mistreated in may ways, but the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden was not part of some US lead conspiracy against him.
- cies 7y ago
  > the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden was not part of some US lead conspiracy against him. What makes you so sure of this?
- jacobush 7y ago
  The public prosecutor can press charges, which is what happened here. They don't for a boatload of would be cases. With Assange, they did, which is not exactly true to form.

anongraddebt 7y ago

I used to be a fairly strong supporter of our military. Not blanket support (since there are always exceptions to anything), and I wasn't super enthusiastic/patriotic like some are, but in general I had a pretty positive view. My uncle is a general in the Air Force, all three of my grandfathers fought in WW2 (my Dad's biological father was killed by a drunk driver when he was 7), etc etc. I have pictures of my grandfather standing under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris with the tank squad he commanded. Wikileaks helped change my mind quite a bit. Among the many things they published, there was one video that really stood out: POV camera from a apache as the pilot releases a missile into a group of civilians that included a number of journalists. Things like this couldn't be ignored, because of Wikileaks record. You couldn't start off down a path of rationalizing, etc. They made you face up to the ground-level reality. I still support and appreciate the people who serve in our armed forces, but thanks to Wikileaks I have a much more nuanced,skeptical, and (I believe) more appropriate view.

banads 7y ago
>They made you face up to the ground-level reality. The news media has consciously hidden and censored the ground level reality of war since Vietnam, where they made the mistake of showing families the graphic ground level realities of war in color while they ate TV dinners in their living rooms. This created what was perhaps the greatest anti war sentiment in US history -- it was not sustainable. Meanwhile Hollywood perpetually pushed out war and action movies glorifying violence while also censoring the disgusting reality of it.
- dustingetz 7y ago
  why was anti war sentiment not sustainable for tv news stations?
  - iwintermute 7y ago
    because "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
MiroF 7y ago

multjoy 7y ago

> funny how there’s been no footage of it, despite the fact that he was under 24/7 surveillance! There wouldn’t be. It’s an embassy. The met aren’t daft enough to do anything other than watch the front door.

nicehat 7y ago
A Spanish company were hired to spy on Assange's meetings - going so far as to install streaming cameras in the ladies room. https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_65... > After the installation of new video cameras at the beginning of December 2017, Morales requested that his technicians install an external streaming access point in the same area so that all of the recordings could be accessed instantly by the United States. To do this, he requested three channels for access: “one for Ecuador, another for us and another for X,” according to mails sent at the time to his colleagues. When one of the technicians asked to contact “the Americans” to explain the way that they should access some of the spying systems installed in the embassy, Morales would always be evasive with his answers. > Morales ordered his workers to install microphones in the embassy’s fire extinguishers and also in the women’s bathroom, where Assange’s lawyers, including the Spaniard Aitor Martínez and his closest collaborators, would meet for fear of being spied on.

seattle_spring 7y ago

Faultless record? Absolutely not. They will support /r/conspiracy's lunacy at all costs as long as it somehow ties to Hillary Clinton. This one[1] was the most ridiculous claim they supported, but I'm sure someone who cares more could find dozens or even hundreds more claims made by WikiLeaks that are nothing more than deranged Dale Gribble-esque rants. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-tech-assange...

aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Please never in good faith cite snopes as a reference.
- seattle_spring 7y ago
  Would you mind going through the contents of the article I posted from them and finding pieces of inaccuracy?
MiroF 7y ago
Sorry - were the claims that David Soloff was behind T&C actually made by Wikileaks? Your link provides no evidence of that fact that I see, and from a brief perusal of the primary sources, I don't see Wikileaks ever making that claim either.
aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Disregarding the fact that Snopes is a very disreputable organization (e.g. there's a reason Facebook fired them as fact-checkers), your reference doesn't even back up what you say. Is it possible you're the one engaging in conspiracy theories?
- noname120 7y ago
  The official narrative is that they withdrew from the program[1]. If you have contradicting evidence, please provide it when making such a claim. This community doesn't like broad claims without evidence. [1] https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snopes-fb-partnership-ends/ https://www.snopes.com/2019/02/01/snopes-fb-partnership-ends...

gamblor956 7y ago

Today I learned that publishing numerous documents entirely it partially forged by Russian Intelligence counts as a faultless record.

malvosenior 7y ago
What was forged by Russian Intelligence?
- jml78 7y ago
  You do know that Wikileaks was on the verge of releasing damaging info on Putin. Then magically it never happened after Assange was visited by Russian agents. Sorry they are nothing more than a propaganda machine of Russia at this point. They went political in the last election choosing to keep GOP documents silenced and release the DNC data. I have no issue if Wikileaks wasn’t playing political games. But they are.....
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    This is not an answer to the question that malvosenior asked.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Even if you believe that, it doesn’t answer my question. What information was forged by Russia?
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    They did not keep GOP documents silenced.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    You do know... Please, no conspiracy theories.
MiroF 7y ago
Oh? What was forged?

fenomas 7y ago

The most detailed, nuanced account of Assange I've seen is this one[0] by Andrew O'Hagan (an author hired to ghostwrite Assange's autobiography who spent a year or so in and out of his orbit). And it's hard to square that account with the image of Assange as a journalist who's being persecuted for the truths he's shared. Though O'Hagan is sympathetic in many ways he doesn't sugarcoat anything, and I came away with the impression that Assange is the author of a great deal of his own woes. (Among other things, much of the account involves Assange lying pretty incessantly, even to his closest allies about petty dramas, so I now find it hard to take anything he's said at face value.) [0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghost... ---- Edit to add: there's a quoted exchange in the account, which now springs to mind every time I hear about Assange. > There are few subjects on which Julian would be reluctant to take what you might call a paternalistic position, but over Snowden, whom he’s never met but has chatted with and feels largely responsible for, he expressed a kind of irritable admiration. "Just how good is he?" I asked. > "He’s number nine," he said. > "In the world? Among computer hackers? And where are you?" > "I’m number three."

SeanBoocock 7y ago
Indeed, this is essential reading in its entirety. The image that emerges is one of a vain and duplicitous man who treats his projects as vehicles for self-aggrandizement. His poor character and lack of integrity are unbecoming in anyone who claims to speak truth to power.
- MiroF 7y ago
  It's no secret that Assange is vain and an asshole. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been a coordinated campaign of character attack and punishment for revealing uncomfortable truths against him. Nor does it mean that he is deserving of what has happened
cies 7y ago
We're discussing the torture of a journalist in the west. Adn you bring up a story that you think he lied to often. Now I assume you are right and I think that stains his character. But, I think this is kind of hard to swallow at this point. I know you respond to someone else comment, and not directly to the story. But in this light i think it is not time to discuss if Assange lied at some point. The man deserves a fair trial, and some nobel prizes for the good stuff he did. Before Wikileaks we were some tin-foil hat /r/conspiracy readers. And now "deep state" a term you find in the MSM. Big progress necessary on the way to fix this mess, yet Assange's life got destroyed in the process.

chx 7y ago

What journalist? Assange is a Russian agent. Even previously there was no doubt but since Mueller this is cemented.

Lammy 7y ago
Declaring who is and is not a valid journalist is not a path we, or any society, should go down.
- lisper 7y ago
  Declaring who is and is not a valid journalist is essential to democracy. The failure to distinguish journalism from propaganda is in no small measure responsible for the mess we're currently in.
  - Lammy 7y ago
    If we allow a precedent like that it will some day inevitably be turned on somebody you think speaks objective truth. The past few years have shown me there is no such thing.
    - lisper 7y ago
      I didn't say anything about how this distinction is to be made, only that it needs to be made somehow. And yes, I'm aware of the dangers of false positives. That's a smaller risk than doing nothing and allowing misinformation to propagate unfettered and unlabeled.
      - Lammy 7y ago
        It is a fools' errand to think we will ever be able to get 100% of humanity to agree on objective truth, because there is no such thing. The only 'truth' is the truth of majority, and the only path forward for us as humans is to build a society that can contain, tolerate, and function in spite of all the icky fringe beliefs out there. Think of how many people there must be who are just as convinced as you are or I am that their version of reality is correct. Now think about what it would take to get you to change your mind on some of your deepest beliefs, if it's even possible. _Then_ multiply that problem hundreds of thousands of times over. We don't have enough time left as a species to sit here and argue until we declare one viewpoint "truth" and all the others "un-truth". It is more important for humanity as a species to come together and survive than it is for any individual viewpoint to be "right".

cies 7y ago

See what HKers are doing because they wanted to (initially) safe guard their reporters? See what the west here does to stop rather similar practices of which Assange happens to be at the receiving end? Very little. We let him die, and I include myself into "we". This is just abhorrent. And it seems we dont even know what to point our anger to, the US govt? The UK? The fucking-were-so-enlightended Swedish govt? Any (western) govt that fails to stand up for him? To stay in xmas spirit: Assange is the modern day Jesus of reporting dying for our freedom and our right te be informed of our sick and twisted govts. I'm angry now.

kordlessagain 7y ago
> See what HKers are doing because they wanted to (initially) safe guard their reporters? Psychological projection can be contagious, when used with blame: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-feelings/201104/shame-concealed-contagious-and-dangerous-emotion https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and...

tdcbfdct3 7y ago

> Wikileaks has a faultless record. How about this bullshit Steve Jobs AIDS diagnosis? https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hiv-2.jpg https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hi...

MiroF 7y ago
This is disingenuous. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_... Wikileaks explicitly noted: > Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value. Using Wayback machine, I can confirm that this text was associated with these images from the first moment that they were published on Wikileaks. Also, HIV isn't AIDS and you should keep that in mind.
- MiroF 7y ago
  While investigating, I did find this though: https://compote.slate.com/images/6095c484-0c54-4ba2-9ac2-e876738257d4.jpg https://compote.slate.com/images/6095c484-0c54-4ba2-9ac2-e87... This is blatant antisemitism.

duelingjello 7y ago

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell Speaking truth to power is something the corporate-owned fourth estate no longer engages in, and instead discards civil discourse and individuals with integrity because reality is inconvenient compared to fanning the flames with phony-outrage clickbait, replacing it with corporate-led fascism and intolerance masquerading as liberalism. Here are just some of the heroes of freedom: - Phil Donahue (completely gave up a promising career) - Jesse Ventura - Cenk Uyghur * - Chris Hedges - Julian Assange - Chelsea Manning - Aaron Schwartz - John Kiriakou * - Daniel Ellsberg * - Gary Webb - Robert Parry * - Max Blumenthal * - Aaron Maté * - Lee Camp * - Jeremy Scahill * - Glenn Greenwald * * The few, lucky ones

einpoklum 7y ago
All of these have had important positive contributions, but don't idolize any of them. Some of them have adopted problematic positions (IMHO) on various issues or promoted political causes of state establishments. Some are dismissive or even defamatory of people with more radical political views than theirs. Some aren't and I only have good things to say about them, but the point is - we should always judge stories and commentaries by the merit and never fully trust someone even if their record is positive and impressive.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Some humans aren't perfect; film at eleven. I don't think any of the "trust the mainstream narrative" authoritarians ITT are comparing Assange to Aaron Maté. They love the pablum that Rachel Maddow feeds them, and they'll grasp at any irrational straw that could help them keep slurping it down.
enjoiful 7y ago
Can you tell me more about Jesse Ventura?

tasty_freeze 7y ago

It is possible to build a false narrative with nothing but true information. Say I put up a website that every day posted a story about a Jewish person who had been convicted of a financial crime. Say I promoted this site and built up a fan base. If every story was 100% true, nothing but real convictions. Would you say this is an honest, faultless website?

selfishgene 7y ago
Not unless you computed percentage of financial crimes committed by Jews as a percentage of total number of financial crimes committed in the United States. If we saw that this number was appreciably higher than 2%, then we could immediately draw the conclusion that the justice system in this country is biased against Jews, right? (This would be just like we do in the case of blacks when it comes to "more dangerous" crimes like assault, armed robbery, rape, and murder.)
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Your point only reinforces mine -- a website presenting nothing but facts can still offer a false narrative; it takes more work to establish the true narrative. As for the subtext of your message, you seem to be doubtful that the justice system is biased black people. I have no doubt you are a smart person, so it baffles me why on a post about how complex issues need a broad and nuanced understanding you'd take this simple-minded sarcastic swipe. You appear to think that the social justice issue was determined simply based on the fact the black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than the general population, and political correctness demands that it be attributed to judicial bias. There is a lot of research supporting this bias; it isn't just a PC justification.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 7y ago
It _is_ possible. Like how you're trying to build the narrative of Wikileaks having built such false narratives - which they haven't, to the best of my knowledge. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please link to it.

Traster 7y ago

>They’ve never had to retract a publication. Refusing to ever retract anything either means they're literally perfect. Fuck the New York Times, Guardian, BBC, Al Jareeza and every other news organisation that has ever existed. Or they refuse to retract ever, despite sometimes making mistakes.

malvosenior 7y ago
Can you point to something non-factual that Wikileaks has published that you think should have been retracted?

zepto 7y ago

According to you then, RT also has a “faultless record”...

einpoklum 7y ago

Agree with you on all points, except for a slight nitpick: Assange was more of a news publisher than a reporter. That is, he didn't write news stories. We - informed internet users, not just journalists - should be very worried about his treatment and try to act to support him and Wikileaks. If you can't act yourself, do consider donating: https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/ https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/ (there might be other relevant avenues of donating, this is one of them)

notanalien 7y ago

This is a bit esoteric but Julian did criticize the NY Times UFO story in 12/15 and then deleted the tweet- https://imgur.com/a/1z3APkC https://imgur.com/a/1z3APkC It’s hard to verify he deleted it because his Twitter account has been deactivated. Just found it interesting because I think his original tweet was accurate but it was strange that he backtracked.

matsdb 7y ago

> Many newspapers had huge scoops thanks to Wikileaks, but have now turned on them. A particularly striking example is the supposedly liberal Guardian. There's a Norwegian conservative newspaper who (somehow) got access to all the cable gate documents [1], and benefited tremendously on it - but now won't speak up about how Julian Assange is being treated. (Sorry about the norwegian news article) [1] https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/politikk/2010/12/aftenposten-lurte-wikileaks-trill-rundt https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/politikk/2010/12/aftenposten...