35 ms·

Media blackout after key witness against Assange admits lying

1110 points by k1m 5y ago

skinkestek 5y ago
> a fundamental feature of corporate media is propaganda by omission. I've recognized this happening but I have never had a word for it until now.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  It's discussed quite a bit in Manufacturing Consent, with many many examples given - in those days, the U.S. war with Iraq featuring prominently in examples of how broadcast and print media behaved.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    Thanks for the downvote.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      There are actually at least two persons who downvoted you because I upvoted the comment above and I see you are still in grey :-D Complaining about downvotes is however not OK here according to the rules. Sometimes when I am really confused I ask politely why something I wrote was downvoted, but more importantly I got used to it and get over it. In fact I wonder if I have collected most downvotes (and later upvotes) on my most important comments :-)
      - mancerayder 5y ago
        It's strange - I'm OK being downvoted if I have a poor argument, am mean (and I'm not), or make a factual mistake. People vote based on whether they agree or disagree with a political opinion (and is mentioning Manufacturing Consent so partisan in the first place?). I tend to upvote or downvote based on argument strength even if I disagree or agree with the generalized point of view. That's my philosophy. So it makes me slightly bitter when people downvote 'just because.'
        skinkestek 5y ago
        > So it makes me slightly bitter when people downvote 'just because.' Don't get bitter. It only hurts you. I'm actually serious here.
- CookieMon 5y ago
  "Paltering" is another one, with an "Artful Paltering" psyc paper differentiating it as: * Lying by omission - the passive omission of relevant information. * Paltering - active use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression. But knowbody will know what you mean if you use the word paltering, so "by omission" would still be the go-to phrase.
failwhaleshark 5y ago
Witch-hunt by the powerful backed by party of money. It maybe a partisan issue at the grassroots, but it's not really such in government where the majority of politicians are in the same bubble of silencing dissidents and whistleblowers using any means to the end. The whole fiasco is a "This is what happens to you... reporters, publishers, and snitches.. when you threaten to expose our lies and our crimes. We invent crimes and murder you slowly." The only way to prevent this from happening again is to overthrow the powers-that-be because it will keep happening.
sadmann1 5y ago
In the end be it democracy or totalitarianism there's always a small elite controlling discourse. And I'm starting to think china's is managing their country better than ours
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Yeah to everyone who says “communism is fundamentally flawed” I just point to China. Sure, they had some growing pains early on but the scale of what they were trying to do was unprecedented. And yes, the Uyghur situation is awful and should be condemned. But let’s not blame that on communism because the US and plenty of its capitalist allies have done as bad or worse (see also the residential schools in Canada or the incarceration rates of black men in the US).
  - nipponese 5y ago
    It should not be ignored that “growing pains” means ~10 million dead from state-caused famines and imprisoned for thought crimes.
    - Fricken 5y ago
      Yes, the transition to modernity was almost as much of a shock for China as it was for the west. Nonetheless, the net effect is raising about 800 million people out of poverty in a little over a generation, an achievement that has no historical precedent.
      - logicchains 5y ago
        >Nonetheless, the net effect is raising about 800 million people out of poverty in a little over a generation, an achievement that has no historical precedent. Taiwan, Singapore and Korea started from around the same starting point as China after World War Two, and all became developed countries much faster (compare their GDP per capita now to China's). You could say "their populations aren't as big as China", but in that case wouldn't the ideal solution have been to split China up into a bunch of smaller countries that could grow just as fast as Korea etc?
mc32 5y ago
It’s obvious the media are not unbiased. They’ll go full throttle on something like WMDs, border crisis, lab leak cover ups, etc., but also be complicit in burying things like the new border crisis (which appear worse than Trumps) this witness recanting, etc., when it doesn’t fit a narrative. It’s concerning because there has to be some agenda somewhere for things to switch on and off like this. Russia is the biggest threat, no, China is the biggest threat. Oh, no Trump said that, they’re not. But now they’re the biggest again. It’s not “pelosi” it’s not the Congress, it’s most likely what people derisively call the deep state. Unelected bureaucrats with inertial agendas that filter down to the media. I can’t imagine the media running with this 24x7 to make up for their previous bias and asking for forgiveness and demanding the government come correct.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Anyone who says they're "unbiased" is lying. Everyone has biases. Is whether someone has the integrity to recognize and air them, while reporting matters of import that go against their own views/agenda.
- Clubber 5y ago
  I'm not sure the media is complicit more-so than they are being manipulated by what they like / need: money; just as US corporations and through them the US government is being manipulated by what they need by China. We'll let you sell in our market as long as you sign away all your IP is the same as we'll let you in on presidential press meetings as long as you'll say nice things. Also, all those "anonymous" sources from "intelligence agencies" are information / propaganda plants. The CIA doesn't leak very often unintentionally, when it does, people get tortured (Manning / Assange) and/or exiled (Snowden).
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    IP is not a natural law. If a country doesn't want to enforce literal state control over your intellectual process or wants to enforce it in a more lax way, there is nothing wrong with that.
  - 5y ago
WoahNoun 5y ago
I don't think Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson is a "key witness" in the claims against Assange. He might be A witness, but I very much doubt the charges rely on his testimony. As far as the media goes, most people don't care about Assange as much as the conspiracy crowd. And some of the comments here are verging on very conspiratorial.
- k1m 5y ago
  What makes you say that? He was used to strengthen the US case late into the proceedings. The UK judge, while refusing extradition on humantiarian grounds, sided with the US based in part on his testimony: > The Stundin article continued: > ‘With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.
  - WoahNoun 5y ago
    The main charges are related to Chelsea Manning. This was a charge for hacking in Iceland completely unrelated to that. That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges.
    - k1m 5y ago
      > That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges. That charge was completely absent from the case until the US decided it needed to strengthen its case and added it last-minute. So clearly they disagree with you, otherwise they would have kept it out (knowing the background of the individual involved). And again, why would the judge refer to it specifically in siding with the US if it were so unimportant?
- 0e9333fa-97ed 5y ago
  >Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, who admitted that he had made false allegations against Assange after being recruited by US authorities. Thordarson, who has several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and financial fraud, began working with the US Department of Justice and the FBI after receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution. He even admitted to continuing his crime spree while working with the US authorities. That he is in any way involved with the case on the US govt side is extremely unsettling. Especially if he were given immunity child rape for any testimony.
roenxi 5y ago
The really startling thing is ... considering how effective this technique is with the internet it must have been nearly flawless prior to about 2015 when most of the world didn't have access to the internet. What we're seeing isn't so much an elite group controlling the narrative as an elite group who used to be able to control the narrative and now can't patch over the rough spots.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  Yes. They are struggling to regain control.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    Let's hope the toothpaste has already left the tube and can't go back in again.
    - kzrdude 5y ago
      Whatever the future has in store for us - instability - upheaval - is rarely good for quality of life in the short term.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > prior to about 2015 when most of the world didn't have access to the internet. I can't tell if you're being facetious or not...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Actually, the internet hit 50% worldwide penetration right around 2015 : https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      But this is in the UK where active users were around 95% in 2015. https://ourworldindata.org/internet https://ourworldindata.org/internet
Clewza313 5y ago
Casually thrown into the article is this rather startling claim: > Meanwhile, the FBI were allegedly complicit in DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on the websites of several Iceland government institutions. The FBI had then approached Icelandic authorities, promising to assist them in preventing any future such attacks. Is these any evidence backing up this claim of what would essentially be an act of (cyber)war against a NATO ally?
- ianhawes 5y ago
  FWIW, some DDoS attacks against political targets, you could argue, are the 21st century equivalent of a protest sit-in.
  - prepend 5y ago
    Not when done by the FBI. Unless we think it’s ok for government employees to be paid to sit in for a political protest.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Every large-enough political protest in USA since the creation of FBI has been well-attended either by FBI agents themselves or by CIs in their employ. Infiltration of groups who posed a "threat" to the status quo was one of JEH's priorities. Of course you're right, though. This isn't OK, and on balance FBI is like any other federal TLA. The average citizen will be better off on the day they are disbanded.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Reformed, yes. But disbanded? Who’s going to go after child traffickers crossing state lines? Bank robbers?
        jessaustin 5y ago
        This reminds me of the arguments for bank bailouts. There are lots of capable police and investigators in USA. Most of them don't work for FBI. Some of them who do work for FBI would do better work in a better organization. FBI isn't the only authority focused on crime. Other authorities could take over more duties, or new authorities could be created. It's fine for things to change occasionally, especially when toxic organizations are replaced by something better. And please, it's not as though FBI really focuses on the two concerns you highlighted.
gadders 5y ago
Craig Murray's write up on the same event: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/fbi-fabrication-against-assange-falls-apart/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/fbi-fabricat...
motohagiography 5y ago
The impact of media organizations discrediting and completely debasing themselves over Assange, but also Snowden and a host of other U.S. false issues related to the law enforcement and intelligence community and its contagion into social platforms is what has really cleaved the culture. These are bad people exploiting bad people to ensure that worse people can keep doing terrible things. It's capital-E evil. Personally I think we could probably trace it back to soviet infiltration of the university education system around the world in the 60's and 70's, which within a lifetime has produced multiple generations of nihilistic bureaucrats trained to seek power for its own sake, and now they occupy our institutions at all levels and have used them to destroy the foundations of the culture and seize its means of production, while subordinating them to a global regime. All without firing a shot. The reason these people believe what they're doing is ok is because someone taught them that the ends justify the means. The Assange affair is just a symptom of a much more terrible disease, and this witness and the media compliance around him are about par for the course in all of this.
- monocasa 5y ago
  I'm not sure you have to keep pointing to the boogie man of soviet infiltrators to explain power hungry bureaucrats. Those have existed in literally every society since at least the early bronze age.
  - 46756e 5y ago
    Agreed, I think better explanation is much more simple: Those that will do anything for power have an advantage over others, ergo people at high level positions are disproportionately those types of people.
    - phkahler 5y ago
      >> Those that will do anything for power have an advantage over others, ergo people at high level positions are disproportionately those types of people. One thought is that we could try to fix that problem with some type of screening, but that would be another system to game or corrupt. Also, those kind of people (high ambition and drive) can be really useful in those positions so long as they don't go off the rails.
tpoacher 5y ago
"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." ~ Yevgeny Yevtushenko
raziel2p 5y ago
a simpler explanation would be that many people simply don't care that much about the Assange case at the moment, and this is just a development or such, nothing conclusive. were the case to be completely dropped in court due to this, I think it would make the news.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  Isn't that arguing that MSM report what people want to know as opposed to people knowing what the MSM report? It's hard to know about something MSM doesn't report.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Isn't that arguing that MSM report what people want to know as opposed to people knowing what the MSM report? What's particularly interesting about the Assange case at this point? He's a guy in an extradition hearing, probably like thousands of others. If the end result is the extradition is rejected because of this detail, then it will more than likely be reported as part of that larger story. Assange has a small but vocal fan base, but fans don't make the minutiae of these court proceedings interesting or relevant to non-fans.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      I'd add that if and when Assange is actually extradited to the US, that will be news. And if and when Assange goes on trial in a US Federal court, that will be covered ad inifinitum, ad nauseam by the US press.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      That doesn't answer nor discuss anything in my comment.
- jrsj 5y ago
  Nobody cared until the media made them care in the first place, to build anti-Wikileaks and anti-Assange sentiment. Awful convenient that they stop talking about him the moment there’s concrete evidence that the whole thing was a setup.
greesil 5y ago
But is it a blackout if it gets to the front page of HN?
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  HN isn't a media outlet. It doesn't have an editor, any journalists, or even news readers. Have you ever seen any original reporting here?
  - greesil 5y ago
    It's more a question about the visibility of information, and HN increases visibility. HN originating content is irrelevant. News about Assange is niche, that niche is here. Lack of mainstream reporting might not be a vast conspiracy. So I would say that this news has been surfaced appropriately to the correct audience, and not actually suppressed.
    - washadjeffmad 5y ago
      If you want to be pedantic, HN also does not fact check its articles or comments. Nothing else supports HN being a media outlet or rebut this as a media blackout. There have been 20 articles in print and on the web mentioning Assange in the NY Times since 2021 began, avidly covering the details of his trial and extradition, but now nothing. If their search features are any indication, CNN doesn't believe you should seek out news as much as passively accept it-same pattern and then no recent mention. Reuters' latest article from 25 June in a break from the style of their previous coverage leaves out mention of the trial details entirely in favor of a human element story petitioning Biden free Assange "to show the US has changed". This narrative does little to exculpate Assange or share why the trial may be over for good while preempting any credit for what follows to the mercy and wisdom of Biden. Whether Biden ignores or denies, well, them's the laws, you know. If the whole rest of the town doesn't have power and you refuse to call it a blackout because you can see some people have working generators, you don't understand what a blackout is.
      - 5y ago
exabrial 5y ago
Keep in mind this is just my opinion, not a statement of fact, as I do not have any inside details. The notion of neutral or unbiased media is a little strange IMHO; they're a for profit corporation, for one. The media has an agenda and it's usually to please the particular political party they favor. In this specific scenario, I don't think it's too hard to identify. Assange embarrassed key members of a certain American political party and likely cost them an entire election. It's one of those scenarios where if you don't conform you will be silenced.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > Assange embarrassed key members of a certain American political party and likely cost them an entire election Other people embarrass the GOP on a daily basis and they have daily nightly TV news shows. If you mean the other political party - they have a habit of losing elections because they don't fight dirty..., so I just don't see how that's a coherent argument. Now, if you're referring to _the establishment_, that's different - and it's not a political party _per se_.
  - jrsj 5y ago
    They literally fabricated an entire narrative about Russian collusion out of thin air and pushed it for years despite having little to no evidence. I wouldn’t say they don’t play dirty just because they’ve lost more than they’ve won since 1980
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      If you're being consistent, you must believe that the (Republican-led) Senate Intelligence Committee also fabricated a narrative when they wrote in their report: "It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
f1refly 5y ago
> Meanwhile, the FBI were allegedly complicit in DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on the websites of several Iceland government institutions. The FBI had then approached Icelandic authorities, promising to assist them in preventing any future such attacks. In reality, the approach was a ruse to fool Iceland into cooperation in an attempt to entrap Assange. The FBI is a criminal organisation.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Wait until you read about the FBI did to Black civil rights leaders.
  - r3trohack3r 5y ago
    For those who want to dig deeper, here is a good entry to the rabbit hole: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
lettergram 5y ago
I actually recommend https://ground.news/ https://ground.news/ You can see topics trending in right media (this was) and compare to the left media. I tend to send friends of either affinity topics from the other, my own effort to bring people together... or at least understand each other (have the same facts).
- pydry 5y ago
  Their left/right categories are kind of a joke. The daily mail owned metro is described as "left media" while RT is shoved in the same category as fox news. They should really categorize by more fine grained biases and allegiances. E.g. WaPo to the US military industrial complex, RT to putin, CNBC to the DNC, Fox to RNC/Rupert Murdoch, BBC to the tories, Metro to lord rothermere.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Any black/white distinction is a joke, for that matter. There's never just two sides to any complex issue, but framing it like that is one of the most powerful ruses in the media (and in politics).
  - stevehawk 5y ago
    Even that would be contested though. Fox/FoxNews isn't actually considered all that Republican right now because they aren't fullstop on Trump. And these categorizations could probably vary wildly. This is the first time I've ever heard of the WaPo being aligned with the US military industrial complex and I was part of that complex for twenty years. I'm guessing this new title is because it's owned by Bezos and he provides a lot of AWS tech?
    - will4274 5y ago
      > This is the first time I've ever heard of the WaPo being aligned with the US military industrial complex Did you not hear about the US 2003 invasion of Iraq? WaPo news stories in the lead up were certainly aligned with the US military industrial complex. In my memory, the NYT and WaPo (the most important two "liberal" newspapers) both being in support of a republican president invading a third world country is one of the most notable evidences that the MSM is complicit with the government.
jugg1es 5y ago
The source that this article cites is stundin.is. That article does not have any links or citations for what it's saying. It just refers to 'court documents'. It also cites other evidence obtained by stundin directly, but does not link to it or quote from it directly. How do we know if this claim is even true?
- okamiueru 5y ago
  The article is nothing but filled with citations. Are we looking at the same thing? All those quotes, and who said it, are the citations. And all of them are traced to its respective sources.
  - jugg1es 5y ago
    In this article? https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-a... There isn't a single link in that article. It makes tons of claims but does not include references to the primary source. For example: "Thordarson spoke with a journalist from Stundin for several hours as he prepared a thorough investigative report into his activities that include never before published chat logs and new documents." It's honestly not clear whether his sentence refers to the journalist or Thordarson when it says "as he prepared", but either way, it references previously-unpublished chat logs and repeats what is in them but does not actually show any of the logs. I'm not saying the claims aren't true, just that this article sets of my BS detectors because there isn't a single link in it. They are asking the reader to take a lot on faith.
    - okamiueru 5y ago
      I thought you meant the article the this HN entry links to. I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying.
maverick-iceman 5y ago
The burden of the proof is always on the person trying to emerge. Both Assange and Snowden wanted to emerge to notoriety, and projected their own mind frame onto others, thinking they had some sort of royal flush, and as soon as they'd sign off and reveal the information they had , they'd have been acclaimed and an immediate rise to stardom would have ensued. In reality the military is the most popular Federal agency, they should have focused their efforts on George W. Bush who ended his mandate with a 19% approval rating
m1117 5y ago
I wish Assange escaped to Russia and continued his venture.
uniqueid 5y ago
If you have no proof of a 'media blackout' maybe you should shut your populist pie-hole until you do! Look at this garbage: But in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing. Jesus.
- jrsj 5y ago
  So you’re saying unless there’s evidence that someone is explicitly telling them not to talk about it, it doesn’t matter? They pushed the narrative that he was guilty in the first place! They have a responsibility to make a correction and instead they say nothing.
  - uniqueid 5y ago
    I'm saying the author(s) of this piece shouldn't pass off their speculation, correct or not, as fact. Heck, my speculation is that the reason this article does overstate the case is to work readers up for more donations, but that's different than knowing so as a fact.
    - jrsj 5y ago
      Personally I think the silence speaks for itself. If this wasn’t a story they had previously covered (very aggressively) it would be different, but it’s basically impossible that the media just doesn’t know about this. Plus, they’ve all been pumping out anti-Assange propaganda at pretty much every opportunity. I don’t think standards of absolute factual correctness really apply when you’re criticizing organizations which regularly frame facts in a way which is deliberately misleading. And even if it were true that they are exaggerating to try to get donations…that’s a lot less sinister than doing the bidding of the intelligence agencies in persecuting an innocent man for years. Regardless nobody is stopping you from making that claim, it’s up to others to decide whether or not it’s plausible.
nickysielicki 5y ago
One of the most unfortunate things in the past 6 years is that support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks became a partisan issue purely because they exposed corruption in your favorite political party. It's hard to put a finger on just how much the current form of western democracy differs from the 18th century ideal of western democracy. Let this concretize it: Global western "democracy" conspires to put the single most hard-hitting journalist of the past decade in jail indefinitely on fictitious charges and virtually nobody cares. Where are the protests? Where is the outrage? Do most Americans even know who Julian Assange is? "Fascism" gets thrown around a lot and I know it feels a bit overplayed, and I'm not saying we're there yet, but when most people are apathetic and the remainder form their opinion based entirely on their political faction, it's hard for me to believe that fascism isn't inevitable. After all, what is fascism about if it's not 'party firmly over principle'?
- chronicsunshine 5y ago
  I think you are mischaracterizing why Julian Assange has lost support. He has not lost support because of exposing corruption in any political parties, he's lost support because its become clear he works with Russian intelligence services. People have leaked data on Russian corruption to WikiLeaks, which went unpublished. His leaks coincide with what is politically favorable to Russia, not with making all information free to the world. To the downvoters: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... Maybe provide some feedback, so I can understand why you disagree with me?
  - ecshafer 5y ago
    If what he says is true, why does it matter that its politically favorable to Russia? As a liberal democracy we should strive to be more moral and upstanding, hiding those things for politics is the opposite of that.
    - 5y ago
Sr_developer 5y ago
This OK, if you dont like it go and create your own newspaper, news agency or media conglomerate. This is the world we live in right now.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Except, the current media outlets will use their monopoly power to suppress you, and the government will do jack diddly squat to stop them. Just look what happened with parler and Gab. Both sought to get around Facebook and Twitter and Reddit's bans on right-wing speech by building their own facebook and twitter. In response, companies like Amazon banned them from their platform. And Gab, for example, cannot distribute their apps on either the google play or apple app store. So no. In a normal society with a government-protected free market, you'd be right. But we currently live in what is quite obviously a corporatocracy, even if no one wants to admit it.
  - Sr_developer 5y ago
    I was being sarcastic (it dismays me a little to have to explain it). I agree with you, I was only parodying the majority position on this site any time someone they dont like is suppressed.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Oh haha... it's hard to tell what's satire these days.
Analemma_ 5y ago
I don't understand this claim that left-leaning media is biased against Assagne. Pretty much all the left and center-left outlets I know say he should not be prosecuted: Vox: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/4/12/18308186/assange-arrest-freedom-of-press https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/4/... The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment-of-julian-assange-is-a-threat-to-journalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment... Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traditional-journalists-may-abandon-wikileaks-assange-at-their-own-peril/2019/04/11/45ae985c-5c84-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traditional-j... The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-arrested-journalists-defend/586936/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-ass... NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/opinion/julian-assange-wikileaks-first-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/opinion/julian-assange-wi... Where is this impression that "the media wants Assagne in jail" coming from? It doesn't seem supported by any evidence beyond people disliking other people's tweets.
- iammisc 5y ago
  These are mostly opinion pieces in 'left leaning' media. All of these are known for once in a while publishing dissenting voices. I mean NYT regularly publishes Ross Douthat and David Frum. I'm guessing the sentiment though comes from talking with the base. In a strange reversal, many democrat voters (or at least the ones that appear on online forums) seem okay with locking Assange up, while it's a common sentiment on thedonald and such 'right wing' forums that Assange ought to be free. That's what I'd guess. Personally, I don't see this is a left/right issue.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
canada_dry 5y ago
> the FBI were allegedly complicit in DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on the websites of several Iceland government institutions. The FBI had then approached Icelandic authorities, promising to assist them in preventing any future such attacks What's really stunning that this statement does not seem like just a wildly crazy accusation.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I'm a Canadian and the CIA has literally kidnapped innocent people off the streets of my city and tortured them to insanity, it's far from the worst that could happen.
  - eloff 5y ago
    I'm not aware of that incident, what are you referring to?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      MKULTRA's work in collaboration with a McGill researcher, in which they put psychiatry patients into a coma against their consents and tortured them : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_experiments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_experiments
      - deorder 5y ago
        This is an interesting small documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PXI5Ba1Ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PXI5Ba1Ak Not sure how true it all is.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It's very difficult to know. Weirdly, while the CIA released a lot of the data about général MKULTRA, no data about the Montréal operations were released. There are certainly even more facets to the program we don't know about.
ineedasername 5y ago
From what I can tell from the article, this witness testified about hacking MP's. Was this the same witness that said Assange was-- at least attempting-- to provide support to Chelsea Manning hacking passwords?
bumbada 5y ago
In the article they talk about right wing propaganda but after admitting the huge amount of resources Obama used to catch Assange, using nefarious means. It is not the right, it is not the left, it is power. Power (anybody in power) does not like anybody criticizing them. In the US, in China or everywhere in the world. The US has a big War industry and infrastructure, that is a power on their own. It tells presidents what to do and not the other way.
the_optimist 5y ago
Why is the media unwilling to publish information which contravenes the malfeasance of the intelligence agencies?
ncmncm 5y ago
Another serious gap in coverage, and response to the revelations, is any hint of discipline for the FBI agents and prosecutors who spun the tissue of lies, or even questions about why there isn't any.
RustyConsul 5y ago
This would be a good (Bad?) time to read the sovereign individual

1110 points by k1m 5y ago

> a fundamental feature of corporate media is propaganda by omission. I've recognized this happening but I have never had a word for it until now.

mancerayder 5y ago
It's discussed quite a bit in Manufacturing Consent, with many many examples given - in those days, the U.S. war with Iraq featuring prominently in examples of how broadcast and print media behaved.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  Thanks for the downvote.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    There are actually at least two persons who downvoted you because I upvoted the comment above and I see you are still in grey :-D Complaining about downvotes is however not OK here according to the rules. Sometimes when I am really confused I ask politely why something I wrote was downvoted, but more importantly I got used to it and get over it. In fact I wonder if I have collected most downvotes (and later upvotes) on my most important comments :-)
    - mancerayder 5y ago
      It's strange - I'm OK being downvoted if I have a poor argument, am mean (and I'm not), or make a factual mistake. People vote based on whether they agree or disagree with a political opinion (and is mentioning Manufacturing Consent so partisan in the first place?). I tend to upvote or downvote based on argument strength even if I disagree or agree with the generalized point of view. That's my philosophy. So it makes me slightly bitter when people downvote 'just because.'
      - skinkestek 5y ago
        > So it makes me slightly bitter when people downvote 'just because.' Don't get bitter. It only hurts you. I'm actually serious here.
CookieMon 5y ago
"Paltering" is another one, with an "Artful Paltering" psyc paper differentiating it as: * Lying by omission - the passive omission of relevant information. * Paltering - active use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression. But knowbody will know what you mean if you use the word paltering, so "by omission" would still be the go-to phrase.

failwhaleshark 5y ago

Witch-hunt by the powerful backed by party of money. It maybe a partisan issue at the grassroots, but it's not really such in government where the majority of politicians are in the same bubble of silencing dissidents and whistleblowers using any means to the end. The whole fiasco is a "This is what happens to you... reporters, publishers, and snitches.. when you threaten to expose our lies and our crimes. We invent crimes and murder you slowly." The only way to prevent this from happening again is to overthrow the powers-that-be because it will keep happening.

sadmann1 5y ago

In the end be it democracy or totalitarianism there's always a small elite controlling discourse. And I'm starting to think china's is managing their country better than ours

wayoutthere 5y ago
Yeah to everyone who says “communism is fundamentally flawed” I just point to China. Sure, they had some growing pains early on but the scale of what they were trying to do was unprecedented. And yes, the Uyghur situation is awful and should be condemned. But let’s not blame that on communism because the US and plenty of its capitalist allies have done as bad or worse (see also the residential schools in Canada or the incarceration rates of black men in the US).
- nipponese 5y ago
  It should not be ignored that “growing pains” means ~10 million dead from state-caused famines and imprisoned for thought crimes.
  - Fricken 5y ago
    Yes, the transition to modernity was almost as much of a shock for China as it was for the west. Nonetheless, the net effect is raising about 800 million people out of poverty in a little over a generation, an achievement that has no historical precedent.
    - logicchains 5y ago
      >Nonetheless, the net effect is raising about 800 million people out of poverty in a little over a generation, an achievement that has no historical precedent. Taiwan, Singapore and Korea started from around the same starting point as China after World War Two, and all became developed countries much faster (compare their GDP per capita now to China's). You could say "their populations aren't as big as China", but in that case wouldn't the ideal solution have been to split China up into a bunch of smaller countries that could grow just as fast as Korea etc?

mc32 5y ago

It’s obvious the media are not unbiased. They’ll go full throttle on something like WMDs, border crisis, lab leak cover ups, etc., but also be complicit in burying things like the new border crisis (which appear worse than Trumps) this witness recanting, etc., when it doesn’t fit a narrative. It’s concerning because there has to be some agenda somewhere for things to switch on and off like this. Russia is the biggest threat, no, China is the biggest threat. Oh, no Trump said that, they’re not. But now they’re the biggest again. It’s not “pelosi” it’s not the Congress, it’s most likely what people derisively call the deep state. Unelected bureaucrats with inertial agendas that filter down to the media. I can’t imagine the media running with this 24x7 to make up for their previous bias and asking for forgiveness and demanding the government come correct.

failwhaleshark 5y ago
Anyone who says they're "unbiased" is lying. Everyone has biases. Is whether someone has the integrity to recognize and air them, while reporting matters of import that go against their own views/agenda.
Clubber 5y ago
I'm not sure the media is complicit more-so than they are being manipulated by what they like / need: money; just as US corporations and through them the US government is being manipulated by what they need by China. We'll let you sell in our market as long as you sign away all your IP is the same as we'll let you in on presidential press meetings as long as you'll say nice things. Also, all those "anonymous" sources from "intelligence agencies" are information / propaganda plants. The CIA doesn't leak very often unintentionally, when it does, people get tortured (Manning / Assange) and/or exiled (Snowden).
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  IP is not a natural law. If a country doesn't want to enforce literal state control over your intellectual process or wants to enforce it in a more lax way, there is nothing wrong with that.
- 5y ago

WoahNoun 5y ago

I don't think Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson is a "key witness" in the claims against Assange. He might be A witness, but I very much doubt the charges rely on his testimony. As far as the media goes, most people don't care about Assange as much as the conspiracy crowd. And some of the comments here are verging on very conspiratorial.

k1m 5y ago
What makes you say that? He was used to strengthen the US case late into the proceedings. The UK judge, while refusing extradition on humantiarian grounds, sided with the US based in part on his testimony: > The Stundin article continued: > ‘With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  The main charges are related to Chelsea Manning. This was a charge for hacking in Iceland completely unrelated to that. That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges.
  - k1m 5y ago
    > That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges. That charge was completely absent from the case until the US decided it needed to strengthen its case and added it last-minute. So clearly they disagree with you, otherwise they would have kept it out (knowing the background of the individual involved). And again, why would the judge refer to it specifically in siding with the US if it were so unimportant?
0e9333fa-97ed 5y ago
>Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, who admitted that he had made false allegations against Assange after being recruited by US authorities. Thordarson, who has several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and financial fraud, began working with the US Department of Justice and the FBI after receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution. He even admitted to continuing his crime spree while working with the US authorities. That he is in any way involved with the case on the US govt side is extremely unsettling. Especially if he were given immunity child rape for any testimony.

roenxi 5y ago

The really startling thing is ... considering how effective this technique is with the internet it must have been nearly flawless prior to about 2015 when most of the world didn't have access to the internet. What we're seeing isn't so much an elite group controlling the narrative as an elite group who used to be able to control the narrative and now can't patch over the rough spots.

a0-prw 5y ago
Yes. They are struggling to regain control.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Let's hope the toothpaste has already left the tube and can't go back in again.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    Whatever the future has in store for us - instability - upheaval - is rarely good for quality of life in the short term.
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> prior to about 2015 when most of the world didn't have access to the internet. I can't tell if you're being facetious or not...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Actually, the internet hit 50% worldwide penetration right around 2015 : https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    But this is in the UK where active users were around 95% in 2015. https://ourworldindata.org/internet https://ourworldindata.org/internet

Clewza313 5y ago

Casually thrown into the article is this rather startling claim: > Meanwhile, the FBI were allegedly complicit in DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on the websites of several Iceland government institutions. The FBI had then approached Icelandic authorities, promising to assist them in preventing any future such attacks. Is these any evidence backing up this claim of what would essentially be an act of (cyber)war against a NATO ally?

ianhawes 5y ago
FWIW, some DDoS attacks against political targets, you could argue, are the 21st century equivalent of a protest sit-in.
- prepend 5y ago
  Not when done by the FBI. Unless we think it’s ok for government employees to be paid to sit in for a political protest.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Every large-enough political protest in USA since the creation of FBI has been well-attended either by FBI agents themselves or by CIs in their employ. Infiltration of groups who posed a "threat" to the status quo was one of JEH's priorities. Of course you're right, though. This isn't OK, and on balance FBI is like any other federal TLA. The average citizen will be better off on the day they are disbanded.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Reformed, yes. But disbanded? Who’s going to go after child traffickers crossing state lines? Bank robbers?
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        This reminds me of the arguments for bank bailouts. There are lots of capable police and investigators in USA. Most of them don't work for FBI. Some of them who do work for FBI would do better work in a better organization. FBI isn't the only authority focused on crime. Other authorities could take over more duties, or new authorities could be created. It's fine for things to change occasionally, especially when toxic organizations are replaced by something better. And please, it's not as though FBI really focuses on the two concerns you highlighted.

gadders 5y ago

Craig Murray's write up on the same event: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/fbi-fabrication-against-assange-falls-apart/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/06/fbi-fabricat...

motohagiography 5y ago

The impact of media organizations discrediting and completely debasing themselves over Assange, but also Snowden and a host of other U.S. false issues related to the law enforcement and intelligence community and its contagion into social platforms is what has really cleaved the culture. These are bad people exploiting bad people to ensure that worse people can keep doing terrible things. It's capital-E evil. Personally I think we could probably trace it back to soviet infiltration of the university education system around the world in the 60's and 70's, which within a lifetime has produced multiple generations of nihilistic bureaucrats trained to seek power for its own sake, and now they occupy our institutions at all levels and have used them to destroy the foundations of the culture and seize its means of production, while subordinating them to a global regime. All without firing a shot. The reason these people believe what they're doing is ok is because someone taught them that the ends justify the means. The Assange affair is just a symptom of a much more terrible disease, and this witness and the media compliance around him are about par for the course in all of this.

monocasa 5y ago
I'm not sure you have to keep pointing to the boogie man of soviet infiltrators to explain power hungry bureaucrats. Those have existed in literally every society since at least the early bronze age.
- 46756e 5y ago
  Agreed, I think better explanation is much more simple: Those that will do anything for power have an advantage over others, ergo people at high level positions are disproportionately those types of people.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    >> Those that will do anything for power have an advantage over others, ergo people at high level positions are disproportionately those types of people. One thought is that we could try to fix that problem with some type of screening, but that would be another system to game or corrupt. Also, those kind of people (high ambition and drive) can be really useful in those positions so long as they don't go off the rails.

tpoacher 5y ago

"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." ~ Yevgeny Yevtushenko

raziel2p 5y ago

a simpler explanation would be that many people simply don't care that much about the Assange case at the moment, and this is just a development or such, nothing conclusive. were the case to be completely dropped in court due to this, I think it would make the news.

Dah00n 5y ago
Isn't that arguing that MSM report what people want to know as opposed to people knowing what the MSM report? It's hard to know about something MSM doesn't report.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Isn't that arguing that MSM report what people want to know as opposed to people knowing what the MSM report? What's particularly interesting about the Assange case at this point? He's a guy in an extradition hearing, probably like thousands of others. If the end result is the extradition is rejected because of this detail, then it will more than likely be reported as part of that larger story. Assange has a small but vocal fan base, but fans don't make the minutiae of these court proceedings interesting or relevant to non-fans.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    I'd add that if and when Assange is actually extradited to the US, that will be news. And if and when Assange goes on trial in a US Federal court, that will be covered ad inifinitum, ad nauseam by the US press.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    That doesn't answer nor discuss anything in my comment.
jrsj 5y ago
Nobody cared until the media made them care in the first place, to build anti-Wikileaks and anti-Assange sentiment. Awful convenient that they stop talking about him the moment there’s concrete evidence that the whole thing was a setup.

greesil 5y ago

But is it a blackout if it gets to the front page of HN?

washadjeffmad 5y ago
HN isn't a media outlet. It doesn't have an editor, any journalists, or even news readers. Have you ever seen any original reporting here?
- greesil 5y ago
  It's more a question about the visibility of information, and HN increases visibility. HN originating content is irrelevant. News about Assange is niche, that niche is here. Lack of mainstream reporting might not be a vast conspiracy. So I would say that this news has been surfaced appropriately to the correct audience, and not actually suppressed.
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago
    If you want to be pedantic, HN also does not fact check its articles or comments. Nothing else supports HN being a media outlet or rebut this as a media blackout. There have been 20 articles in print and on the web mentioning Assange in the NY Times since 2021 began, avidly covering the details of his trial and extradition, but now nothing. If their search features are any indication, CNN doesn't believe you should seek out news as much as passively accept it-same pattern and then no recent mention. Reuters' latest article from 25 June in a break from the style of their previous coverage leaves out mention of the trial details entirely in favor of a human element story petitioning Biden free Assange "to show the US has changed". This narrative does little to exculpate Assange or share why the trial may be over for good while preempting any credit for what follows to the mercy and wisdom of Biden. Whether Biden ignores or denies, well, them's the laws, you know. If the whole rest of the town doesn't have power and you refuse to call it a blackout because you can see some people have working generators, you don't understand what a blackout is.
    - 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago

Keep in mind this is just my opinion, not a statement of fact, as I do not have any inside details. The notion of neutral or unbiased media is a little strange IMHO; they're a for profit corporation, for one. The media has an agenda and it's usually to please the particular political party they favor. In this specific scenario, I don't think it's too hard to identify. Assange embarrassed key members of a certain American political party and likely cost them an entire election. It's one of those scenarios where if you don't conform you will be silenced.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> Assange embarrassed key members of a certain American political party and likely cost them an entire election Other people embarrass the GOP on a daily basis and they have daily nightly TV news shows. If you mean the other political party - they have a habit of losing elections because they don't fight dirty..., so I just don't see how that's a coherent argument. Now, if you're referring to _the establishment_, that's different - and it's not a political party _per se_.
- jrsj 5y ago
  They literally fabricated an entire narrative about Russian collusion out of thin air and pushed it for years despite having little to no evidence. I wouldn’t say they don’t play dirty just because they’ve lost more than they’ve won since 1980
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    If you're being consistent, you must believe that the (Republican-led) Senate Intelligence Committee also fabricated a narrative when they wrote in their report: "It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...

f1refly 5y ago

> Meanwhile, the FBI were allegedly complicit in DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on the websites of several Iceland government institutions. The FBI had then approached Icelandic authorities, promising to assist them in preventing any future such attacks. In reality, the approach was a ruse to fool Iceland into cooperation in an attempt to entrap Assange. The FBI is a criminal organisation.

ComputerGuru 5y ago
Wait until you read about the FBI did to Black civil rights leaders.
- r3trohack3r 5y ago
  For those who want to dig deeper, here is a good entry to the rabbit hole: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

lettergram 5y ago

I actually recommend https://ground.news/ https://ground.news/ You can see topics trending in right media (this was) and compare to the left media. I tend to send friends of either affinity topics from the other, my own effort to bring people together... or at least understand each other (have the same facts).

pydry 5y ago
Their left/right categories are kind of a joke. The daily mail owned metro is described as "left media" while RT is shoved in the same category as fox news. They should really categorize by more fine grained biases and allegiances. E.g. WaPo to the US military industrial complex, RT to putin, CNBC to the DNC, Fox to RNC/Rupert Murdoch, BBC to the tories, Metro to lord rothermere.
- tremon 5y ago
  Any black/white distinction is a joke, for that matter. There's never just two sides to any complex issue, but framing it like that is one of the most powerful ruses in the media (and in politics).
- stevehawk 5y ago
  Even that would be contested though. Fox/FoxNews isn't actually considered all that Republican right now because they aren't fullstop on Trump. And these categorizations could probably vary wildly. This is the first time I've ever heard of the WaPo being aligned with the US military industrial complex and I was part of that complex for twenty years. I'm guessing this new title is because it's owned by Bezos and he provides a lot of AWS tech?
  - will4274 5y ago
    > This is the first time I've ever heard of the WaPo being aligned with the US military industrial complex Did you not hear about the US 2003 invasion of Iraq? WaPo news stories in the lead up were certainly aligned with the US military industrial complex. In my memory, the NYT and WaPo (the most important two "liberal" newspapers) both being in support of a republican president invading a third world country is one of the most notable evidences that the MSM is complicit with the government.

jugg1es 5y ago

The source that this article cites is stundin.is. That article does not have any links or citations for what it's saying. It just refers to 'court documents'. It also cites other evidence obtained by stundin directly, but does not link to it or quote from it directly. How do we know if this claim is even true?

okamiueru 5y ago
The article is nothing but filled with citations. Are we looking at the same thing? All those quotes, and who said it, are the citations. And all of them are traced to its respective sources.
- jugg1es 5y ago
  In this article? https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-a... There isn't a single link in that article. It makes tons of claims but does not include references to the primary source. For example: "Thordarson spoke with a journalist from Stundin for several hours as he prepared a thorough investigative report into his activities that include never before published chat logs and new documents." It's honestly not clear whether his sentence refers to the journalist or Thordarson when it says "as he prepared", but either way, it references previously-unpublished chat logs and repeats what is in them but does not actually show any of the logs. I'm not saying the claims aren't true, just that this article sets of my BS detectors because there isn't a single link in it. They are asking the reader to take a lot on faith.
  - okamiueru 5y ago
    I thought you meant the article the this HN entry links to. I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying.

maverick-iceman 5y ago

The burden of the proof is always on the person trying to emerge. Both Assange and Snowden wanted to emerge to notoriety, and projected their own mind frame onto others, thinking they had some sort of royal flush, and as soon as they'd sign off and reveal the information they had , they'd have been acclaimed and an immediate rise to stardom would have ensued. In reality the military is the most popular Federal agency, they should have focused their efforts on George W. Bush who ended his mandate with a 19% approval rating

m1117 5y ago

I wish Assange escaped to Russia and continued his venture.

uniqueid 5y ago

If you have no proof of a 'media blackout' maybe you should shut your populist pie-hole until you do! Look at this garbage: But in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing. Jesus.

jrsj 5y ago
So you’re saying unless there’s evidence that someone is explicitly telling them not to talk about it, it doesn’t matter? They pushed the narrative that he was guilty in the first place! They have a responsibility to make a correction and instead they say nothing.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  I'm saying the author(s) of this piece shouldn't pass off their speculation, correct or not, as fact. Heck, my speculation is that the reason this article does overstate the case is to work readers up for more donations, but that's different than knowing so as a fact.
  - jrsj 5y ago
    Personally I think the silence speaks for itself. If this wasn’t a story they had previously covered (very aggressively) it would be different, but it’s basically impossible that the media just doesn’t know about this. Plus, they’ve all been pumping out anti-Assange propaganda at pretty much every opportunity. I don’t think standards of absolute factual correctness really apply when you’re criticizing organizations which regularly frame facts in a way which is deliberately misleading. And even if it were true that they are exaggerating to try to get donations…that’s a lot less sinister than doing the bidding of the intelligence agencies in persecuting an innocent man for years. Regardless nobody is stopping you from making that claim, it’s up to others to decide whether or not it’s plausible.

nickysielicki 5y ago

One of the most unfortunate things in the past 6 years is that support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks became a partisan issue purely because they exposed corruption in your favorite political party. It's hard to put a finger on just how much the current form of western democracy differs from the 18th century ideal of western democracy. Let this concretize it: Global western "democracy" conspires to put the single most hard-hitting journalist of the past decade in jail indefinitely on fictitious charges and virtually nobody cares. Where are the protests? Where is the outrage? Do most Americans even know who Julian Assange is? "Fascism" gets thrown around a lot and I know it feels a bit overplayed, and I'm not saying we're there yet, but when most people are apathetic and the remainder form their opinion based entirely on their political faction, it's hard for me to believe that fascism isn't inevitable. After all, what is fascism about if it's not 'party firmly over principle'?

chronicsunshine 5y ago
I think you are mischaracterizing why Julian Assange has lost support. He has not lost support because of exposing corruption in any political parties, he's lost support because its become clear he works with Russian intelligence services. People have leaked data on Russian corruption to WikiLeaks, which went unpublished. His leaks coincide with what is politically favorable to Russia, not with making all information free to the world. To the downvoters: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... Maybe provide some feedback, so I can understand why you disagree with me?
- ecshafer 5y ago
  If what he says is true, why does it matter that its politically favorable to Russia? As a liberal democracy we should strive to be more moral and upstanding, hiding those things for politics is the opposite of that.
  - 5y ago

Sr_developer 5y ago

This OK, if you dont like it go and create your own newspaper, news agency or media conglomerate. This is the world we live in right now.

iammisc 5y ago
Except, the current media outlets will use their monopoly power to suppress you, and the government will do jack diddly squat to stop them. Just look what happened with parler and Gab. Both sought to get around Facebook and Twitter and Reddit's bans on right-wing speech by building their own facebook and twitter. In response, companies like Amazon banned them from their platform. And Gab, for example, cannot distribute their apps on either the google play or apple app store. So no. In a normal society with a government-protected free market, you'd be right. But we currently live in what is quite obviously a corporatocracy, even if no one wants to admit it.
- Sr_developer 5y ago
  I was being sarcastic (it dismays me a little to have to explain it). I agree with you, I was only parodying the majority position on this site any time someone they dont like is suppressed.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Oh haha... it's hard to tell what's satire these days.

Analemma_ 5y ago

I don't understand this claim that left-leaning media is biased against Assagne. Pretty much all the left and center-left outlets I know say he should not be prosecuted: Vox: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/4/12/18308186/assange-arrest-freedom-of-press https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/4/... The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment-of-julian-assange-is-a-threat-to-journalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment... Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traditional-journalists-may-abandon-wikileaks-assange-at-their-own-peril/2019/04/11/45ae985c-5c84-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/traditional-j... The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-arrested-journalists-defend/586936/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-ass... NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/opinion/julian-assange-wikileaks-first-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/opinion/julian-assange-wi... Where is this impression that "the media wants Assagne in jail" coming from? It doesn't seem supported by any evidence beyond people disliking other people's tweets.

iammisc 5y ago
These are mostly opinion pieces in 'left leaning' media. All of these are known for once in a while publishing dissenting voices. I mean NYT regularly publishes Ross Douthat and David Frum. I'm guessing the sentiment though comes from talking with the base. In a strange reversal, many democrat voters (or at least the ones that appear on online forums) seem okay with locking Assange up, while it's a common sentiment on thedonald and such 'right wing' forums that Assange ought to be free. That's what I'd guess. Personally, I don't see this is a left/right issue.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

canada_dry 5y ago

> the FBI were allegedly complicit in DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on the websites of several Iceland government institutions. The FBI had then approached Icelandic authorities, promising to assist them in preventing any future such attacks What's really stunning that this statement does not seem like just a wildly crazy accusation.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I'm a Canadian and the CIA has literally kidnapped innocent people off the streets of my city and tortured them to insanity, it's far from the worst that could happen.
- eloff 5y ago
  I'm not aware of that incident, what are you referring to?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    MKULTRA's work in collaboration with a McGill researcher, in which they put psychiatry patients into a coma against their consents and tortured them : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_experiments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_experiments
    - deorder 5y ago
      This is an interesting small documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PXI5Ba1Ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PXI5Ba1Ak Not sure how true it all is.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        It's very difficult to know. Weirdly, while the CIA released a lot of the data about général MKULTRA, no data about the Montréal operations were released. There are certainly even more facets to the program we don't know about.

ineedasername 5y ago

From what I can tell from the article, this witness testified about hacking MP's. Was this the same witness that said Assange was-- at least attempting-- to provide support to Chelsea Manning hacking passwords?

bumbada 5y ago

In the article they talk about right wing propaganda but after admitting the huge amount of resources Obama used to catch Assange, using nefarious means. It is not the right, it is not the left, it is power. Power (anybody in power) does not like anybody criticizing them. In the US, in China or everywhere in the world. The US has a big War industry and infrastructure, that is a power on their own. It tells presidents what to do and not the other way.

the_optimist 5y ago

Why is the media unwilling to publish information which contravenes the malfeasance of the intelligence agencies?

ncmncm 5y ago

Another serious gap in coverage, and response to the revelations, is any hint of discipline for the FBI agents and prosecutors who spun the tissue of lies, or even questions about why there isn't any.

RustyConsul 5y ago

This would be a good (Bad?) time to read the sovereign individual