10 ms·

Journalists cheered Assange's abuse. Now they've paved his path to a US gulag

42 points by k1m 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago
The headline exaggerates tremendously, but there is hint of truth. Contemporary journalism failed to be critical, perhaps as a reactionary compensation to really borderline insane theories sometimes spread through the net, but it was not the first time they supported questionable decisions through biased reporting. But everyone reiterating the Russia collusion and framed Assange as a Russian asset should be ashamed of themselves and other journalists should be ashamed to share the same profession. There was little reporting and a lot of hit jobs. Yes, there are even worse cases like governments poisoning critics like Nawalny. It doesn't even take much to notice that a redirection is also an admission of guilt. Perhaps journalism deserves the precarious position they find themselves in, but an open and honest press is something bitterly needed. There are some good outlets which suffer immensely under the pressure of the attention economy, but a lot of mainstream news media has degraded to entertainment to satisfy emotional needs of their readers.
anm89 6y ago
What a tragedy. Assange is a hero if an imperfect one.
TheJoeMan 6y ago
Dang did anyone watch that video embedded from the helicopter firefight? After taking out the main bad guys about 10 mins in the gunner slips the trigger finger and lets off like 3 rounds into a house and apparently hit a kid.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Where?
  - snypher 6y ago
    https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk Embedded in the article.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Does this actually happen? I can't see it anywhere near ten minutes. There were no bad guys, all unarmed, two were a Reuters crew. The van was good Samaritans, a man and his children. This is perhaps where you heard children were hit, luckily one of the Apache crews noticed their small frames - they were medevac'd by ground forces and survived (horribly injured).
- renewiltord 6y ago
  When referencing Youtube videos you have to use a timestamp, mang. https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk?t=465 https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk?t=465 Also what you're saying doesn't happen. What does happen is that a van stops to help and they blast it and the kids inside. Which is obviously a horrible thing to do.
Barrin92 6y ago
While the points about Assad's treatment are essentially true I'm not sure the author does himself a favour by engaging in relativism concerning the dubious practises of Wikileaks, Assange, and the probable connections or at least sympathy with the Russian government. For example, concerning leaked internal Democratic emails "An even more important point, however, is that a transparency organisation like Wikileaks had no choice, after it was handed those documents, but to expose abuses by the Democratic party – whoever was the source." I'm pretty sure Wikileaks is the sole authority when it comes to what they publish so they have that choice, and I'll never consider it ethical to leak internal documents of a political organisation, likely by a foreign party, to influence domestic politics. I lost virtually all respect for Assange after reading Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book on Wikileaks and Assange's conduct. Domscheit-Berg was second-in-command at Wikileaks, so it's hard to pretend that all of this is conjured up by the US government.
- brudgers 6y ago
  likely by a foreign party, to influence domestic politics. Assange didn't influence domestic politics and every thing he does is by a foreign party. He's Australian, mate. He had a rather legitimate interest in Clinton's candidacy because she had implied support for his assassination while serving as Secretary of State.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    I agree. Assange made a set of choices that had a political outcome, and he did it on purpose in the hopes that it would have such an outcome. One can argue all day about whether this interventionism was "ethical" or whether what Assange practiced was "journalism", but it doesn't really matter. The people who are deciding Assange's future -- the ones who Assange hoped to put into office -- don't give a crap about any of those questions.
    - mc32 6y ago
      Couldn’t you apply this to all political scoops during a political campaign, when the reporter is on the opposing side —so all opposition reporters would not be journalists in this take.
renewiltord 6y ago
Mainstream journalists are not a good source of information. The WSJ and FT are a great source for business news (for which they have to be good) but that's about it. Journalists are on the cusp of losing their jobs and it's the greatest thing that could happen. For decades, perhaps centuries, they are propaganda arms but now every man with a camera is a better cameraman and every man with a blog is a better writer. Newspapers are doomed. Not because they transformed into liars but because what they can give us can now be given to us by others much better and we don't really need the lies anymore. In their effort to stay relevant they have tried to be more opinionated, but if I just want you to give me your opinion I could get that from smarter people on Twitter rather than some guy who barely knows how to read and write sleep-deprivedly rewriting an AP/Reuters text - which in itself is about 95% bullshit anyway. Perhaps only sports journalists need professionally exist. There are still people who fall for the broken media, though. And fortunately, that is a good thing for the rest of us. While HN celebrated the "discovery" of SuperMicro's "spying", I loaded up on cheap SMCI. Keep doing what you're doing. Making money is all the sweeter this way because someone else is losing it to me.
- EliRivers 6y ago
  Is Joe Random poster on the internet more reliable? I would have gone for less. Making money is all the sweeter this way because someone else is losing it to me. Why such a coward? If you get your kicks through other people's pain, just do it direct.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Yeah, that's the counter-intuitive part: Joe Random is more reliable. It's like asking "Is your opponent for President less reliable than a random?" when wondering about information they give you. Sure the opponent is smarter, more well educated, and less likely to be wrong. But he's your opponent. So maybe don't listen to him if he says "I saw the stats and you're not going to win. It's probably best to save your money" The journalists are suckering you. And if you want to avidly defend the suckering, then go ahead and fit this siphon to your bank account. No no, don't worry, it's a great idea. Bloomberg News said so.

42 points by k1m 6y ago

The headline exaggerates tremendously, but there is hint of truth. Contemporary journalism failed to be critical, perhaps as a reactionary compensation to really borderline insane theories sometimes spread through the net, but it was not the first time they supported questionable decisions through biased reporting. But everyone reiterating the Russia collusion and framed Assange as a Russian asset should be ashamed of themselves and other journalists should be ashamed to share the same profession. There was little reporting and a lot of hit jobs. Yes, there are even worse cases like governments poisoning critics like Nawalny. It doesn't even take much to notice that a redirection is also an admission of guilt. Perhaps journalism deserves the precarious position they find themselves in, but an open and honest press is something bitterly needed. There are some good outlets which suffer immensely under the pressure of the attention economy, but a lot of mainstream news media has degraded to entertainment to satisfy emotional needs of their readers.

anm89 6y ago

What a tragedy. Assange is a hero if an imperfect one.

TheJoeMan 6y ago

Dang did anyone watch that video embedded from the helicopter firefight? After taking out the main bad guys about 10 mins in the gunner slips the trigger finger and lets off like 3 rounds into a house and apparently hit a kid.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
Where?
- snypher 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk Embedded in the article.
Johnjonjoan 6y ago
Does this actually happen? I can't see it anywhere near ten minutes. There were no bad guys, all unarmed, two were a Reuters crew. The van was good Samaritans, a man and his children. This is perhaps where you heard children were hit, luckily one of the Apache crews noticed their small frames - they were medevac'd by ground forces and survived (horribly injured).
renewiltord 6y ago
When referencing Youtube videos you have to use a timestamp, mang. https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk?t=465 https://youtu.be/zYTxuW2vmzk?t=465 Also what you're saying doesn't happen. What does happen is that a van stops to help and they blast it and the kids inside. Which is obviously a horrible thing to do.

Barrin92 6y ago

While the points about Assad's treatment are essentially true I'm not sure the author does himself a favour by engaging in relativism concerning the dubious practises of Wikileaks, Assange, and the probable connections or at least sympathy with the Russian government. For example, concerning leaked internal Democratic emails "An even more important point, however, is that a transparency organisation like Wikileaks had no choice, after it was handed those documents, but to expose abuses by the Democratic party – whoever was the source." I'm pretty sure Wikileaks is the sole authority when it comes to what they publish so they have that choice, and I'll never consider it ethical to leak internal documents of a political organisation, likely by a foreign party, to influence domestic politics. I lost virtually all respect for Assange after reading Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book on Wikileaks and Assange's conduct. Domscheit-Berg was second-in-command at Wikileaks, so it's hard to pretend that all of this is conjured up by the US government.

brudgers 6y ago
likely by a foreign party, to influence domestic politics. Assange didn't influence domestic politics and every thing he does is by a foreign party. He's Australian, mate. He had a rather legitimate interest in Clinton's candidacy because she had implied support for his assassination while serving as Secretary of State.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  I agree. Assange made a set of choices that had a political outcome, and he did it on purpose in the hopes that it would have such an outcome. One can argue all day about whether this interventionism was "ethical" or whether what Assange practiced was "journalism", but it doesn't really matter. The people who are deciding Assange's future -- the ones who Assange hoped to put into office -- don't give a crap about any of those questions.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Couldn’t you apply this to all political scoops during a political campaign, when the reporter is on the opposing side —so all opposition reporters would not be journalists in this take.

renewiltord 6y ago

Mainstream journalists are not a good source of information. The WSJ and FT are a great source for business news (for which they have to be good) but that's about it. Journalists are on the cusp of losing their jobs and it's the greatest thing that could happen. For decades, perhaps centuries, they are propaganda arms but now every man with a camera is a better cameraman and every man with a blog is a better writer. Newspapers are doomed. Not because they transformed into liars but because what they can give us can now be given to us by others much better and we don't really need the lies anymore. In their effort to stay relevant they have tried to be more opinionated, but if I just want you to give me your opinion I could get that from smarter people on Twitter rather than some guy who barely knows how to read and write sleep-deprivedly rewriting an AP/Reuters text - which in itself is about 95% bullshit anyway. Perhaps only sports journalists need professionally exist. There are still people who fall for the broken media, though. And fortunately, that is a good thing for the rest of us. While HN celebrated the "discovery" of SuperMicro's "spying", I loaded up on cheap SMCI. Keep doing what you're doing. Making money is all the sweeter this way because someone else is losing it to me.

EliRivers 6y ago
Is Joe Random poster on the internet more reliable? I would have gone for less. Making money is all the sweeter this way because someone else is losing it to me. Why such a coward? If you get your kicks through other people's pain, just do it direct.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Yeah, that's the counter-intuitive part: Joe Random is more reliable. It's like asking "Is your opponent for President less reliable than a random?" when wondering about information they give you. Sure the opponent is smarter, more well educated, and less likely to be wrong. But he's your opponent. So maybe don't listen to him if he says "I saw the stats and you're not going to win. It's probably best to save your money" The journalists are suckering you. And if you want to avidly defend the suckering, then go ahead and fit this siphon to your bank account. No no, don't worry, it's a great idea. Bloomberg News said so.