6 ms·

This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this. Remember, the News reports things that are new, diffe

This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this. Remember, the News reports things that are new, different, unique. We are not the audience of the MSN. We are not their users. Here's a way to put it into perspective: If you read any newspaper, or watch the TV news, or listen to the radio news, try to remember the last time you heard about a trial every day it was going on, about evidence for the defence and prosecution, about items of law and interviews with witnesses. The vast majority of court reporting gets reported on when it ends - when the jury makes their decision or the Judge passes the sentences. A smaller number gets reports when the court case starts (and items of fact are established) and a similar number may have an occasional report in the middle when some juicy or salacious or sensational piece of evidence is revealed. A tiny number will get reported on every day and then maybe once every 5 years or so. News is about what is new even when it's of great interest to a small number of people. Day 17 of a hearing is not news to almost all news organisations. ---- Edits: I think Craig is doing amazing stuff, his blog is great and necessary to cover this hearing for us and other interested people. It's also worrying about the entire set up and exclusion of most of public and for observers like Amnesty. I caution about falling into the trap of "MSN is bad", the news just be doing news stuff. You can expect them to report on it when it ends.

k1m 6y ago
I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly any interest at all from day 1. Another HN commenter pointed out earlier that the BBC, for example, devoted far more coverage to Johnny Depp's libel case than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707 As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-trial/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
- gimboland 6y ago
  The Guardian reported on the case yesterday [1] and last week [2] and on the 10th [3] and on the 8th [4] and on the 7th [5]. Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked-wikileaks-rival-cryptome-remove-leaked-cables-court-told-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-in-return-for-democrat-hacking-source-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange-hearing-paused-for-lawyer-to-get-covid-test https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange-rapped-by-judge-after-outburst-during-extradition-trial https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-begins-at-old-bailey-wikileaks https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange... (Edit: newlines beteween references.)
  - kmlx 6y ago
    yes, but that doesn't have Craig Murray's conspiracy theories.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      What "conspiracy theory" are you suggesting is being served here?
  - k1m 6y ago
    The Guardian has been very hostile toward Assange. I helped compile a list of its coverage a while ago: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ As for its coverage of the case, the most important aspect, which Jonathan Cook refers to, is that two of its journalists (David Leigh and Luke Harding) are implicated in releasing the password that led to everyone being able to access the unredacted cables that Assange is being blamed for publishing. Cook writes: > The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords. > Much of the furore about Assange's supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh's much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks' work. I'm sure you'll agree that's a hugely significate aspect of the case. Can you find anything in the Guardian accepting responsibility for this? The Guardian journalists responsible have stayed silent and have not appeared in court. Yet the prosecution quotes from their book repeatedly.
Hitton 6y ago
No one expects report every single day. But when I for instance search CNN on Assange hearing, only at least little bit relevant thing in last month is that on the 10th of September lawyer representing prosecution was suspected to have Covid and hearing was suspend till he was tested. Do you seriously consider that the most newsworthy part of the hearing?
- jacknews 6y ago
  Indeed, and the last 'mainstream' headline I read was something like "Assange warned over outburst". It seems to me that there's a global media conspiracy to ignore this case. It's rather ironic, since it has quite serious implications for media freedom in the future. Or perhaps it just demonstrates how 'not free' current media is already.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 6y ago
That is true, but then the MSN is for entertainment and it doesn't function as a fourth estate anymore. That has been the criticism for some time and I think it is pretty on spot. Journalists asking questions is often tantamount how much you can miss the mark that it becomes embarrassing just to listen to it. That they don't report on every day is understandable, but they also made themselves guilty by accusing people to conspire with Russia. That wasn't entertainment, that was a malicious form of propaganda, not some content tailored to a broad audience.
kace91 6y ago
It might be a symptom of the poor state of media nowadays. I'm not that old at all, but I remember seeing much more streams of constant information on ongoing events back when I was a kid (my father was a journalist so there was a lot of press bought daily at home). The system is so dependent on cycles and hyperbole that they simply can afford to keep reporting on an ongoing event for a month, even if it's small tidbits, because they fear the audience will be "satiated". Instead, it's going to be an extreme news explosion at the end of the whole thing, when everything is said and done, so they can probably milk/manufacture outrage - but that information will be completely useless to the public by then.
swebs 6y ago
What does MSN stand for?
- Zarel 6y ago
  I would guess "mainstream news" from context, although I see MSM (mainstream media) a lot more often.
jacknews 6y ago
Seems quite naive. In reality editors need to pander to all kinds of legal, ethical, and 'relationship', aka political pressures. Many stories are not published simply because it would piss-off the the wrong person. I've see this in person.
boublepop 6y ago
> This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this. Every news outlet that covered Wikileaks material when it came out but has not covered the trial against Assange are taking a political stance against freedom of information. This isn’t a case of “the public just doesn’t care” the public by large doesn’t know what’s going on because mainstream media is staying quiet.

k1m 6y ago

I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly any interest at all from day 1. Another HN commenter pointed out earlier that the BBC, for example, devoted far more coverage to Johnny Depp's libel case than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707 As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-trial/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...

gimboland 6y ago
The Guardian reported on the case yesterday [1] and last week [2] and on the 10th [3] and on the 8th [4] and on the 7th [5]. Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked-wikileaks-rival-cryptome-remove-leaked-cables-court-told-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-in-return-for-democrat-hacking-source-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange-hearing-paused-for-lawyer-to-get-covid-test https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange-rapped-by-judge-after-outburst-during-extradition-trial https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-begins-at-old-bailey-wikileaks https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange... (Edit: newlines beteween references.)
- kmlx 6y ago
  yes, but that doesn't have Craig Murray's conspiracy theories.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    What "conspiracy theory" are you suggesting is being served here?
- k1m 6y ago
  The Guardian has been very hostile toward Assange. I helped compile a list of its coverage a while ago: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ As for its coverage of the case, the most important aspect, which Jonathan Cook refers to, is that two of its journalists (David Leigh and Luke Harding) are implicated in releasing the password that led to everyone being able to access the unredacted cables that Assange is being blamed for publishing. Cook writes: > The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords. > Much of the furore about Assange's supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh's much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks' work. I'm sure you'll agree that's a hugely significate aspect of the case. Can you find anything in the Guardian accepting responsibility for this? The Guardian journalists responsible have stayed silent and have not appeared in court. Yet the prosecution quotes from their book repeatedly.

Hitton 6y ago

No one expects report every single day. But when I for instance search CNN on Assange hearing, only at least little bit relevant thing in last month is that on the 10th of September lawyer representing prosecution was suspected to have Covid and hearing was suspend till he was tested. Do you seriously consider that the most newsworthy part of the hearing?

jacknews 6y ago
Indeed, and the last 'mainstream' headline I read was something like "Assange warned over outburst". It seems to me that there's a global media conspiracy to ignore this case. It's rather ironic, since it has quite serious implications for media freedom in the future. Or perhaps it just demonstrates how 'not free' current media is already.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 6y ago

That is true, but then the MSN is for entertainment and it doesn't function as a fourth estate anymore. That has been the criticism for some time and I think it is pretty on spot. Journalists asking questions is often tantamount how much you can miss the mark that it becomes embarrassing just to listen to it. That they don't report on every day is understandable, but they also made themselves guilty by accusing people to conspire with Russia. That wasn't entertainment, that was a malicious form of propaganda, not some content tailored to a broad audience.

kace91 6y ago

It might be a symptom of the poor state of media nowadays. I'm not that old at all, but I remember seeing much more streams of constant information on ongoing events back when I was a kid (my father was a journalist so there was a lot of press bought daily at home). The system is so dependent on cycles and hyperbole that they simply can afford to keep reporting on an ongoing event for a month, even if it's small tidbits, because they fear the audience will be "satiated". Instead, it's going to be an extreme news explosion at the end of the whole thing, when everything is said and done, so they can probably milk/manufacture outrage - but that information will be completely useless to the public by then.

swebs 6y ago

What does MSN stand for?

Zarel 6y ago
I would guess "mainstream news" from context, although I see MSM (mainstream media) a lot more often.

jacknews 6y ago

Seems quite naive. In reality editors need to pander to all kinds of legal, ethical, and 'relationship', aka political pressures. Many stories are not published simply because it would piss-off the the wrong person. I've see this in person.

boublepop 6y ago

> This isn't some conspiracy of the MSN even though we in HN are interested in it and passionate about this. Every news outlet that covered Wikileaks material when it came out but has not covered the trial against Assange are taking a political stance against freedom of information. This isn’t a case of “the public just doesn’t care” the public by large doesn’t know what’s going on because mainstream media is staying quiet.