6 ms·

I agree, coverage of the Assange case is more sporadic now but a quick search of the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secre

I agree, coverage of the Assange case is more sporadic now but a quick search of the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. If there's something to this new claim it may be in their next article about it, they seem to get back to Assange once a month or so. The title for this link is exaggerated at least.

k1m 5y ago
> the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. That's not about this news story. "These dramatic revelations emerged in an extensive article published on 26 June in Stundin." Has the NYT covered them? Here's an NYT search showing everything they published with the term "Assange" in the last month: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=20210702&query=assange&sort=best&startDate=20210602 https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=2021070...
- jrumbut 5y ago
  That was the point of my post, they aren't covering the proceedings minute by minute. They sum it up occasionally. There's a lot going on in the world, not everything can be covered urgently in a general interest publication. They don't have unlimited reporters.
  - k1m 5y ago
    You're implying this is a minor development. It's really not. Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else. I agree with Media Lens: > 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.
    - peter422 5y ago
      You are implying this is a major story… it isn’t. If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting. Hearing more random court proceedings of a very bizarre 10 year fiasco is not. Everybody is a critic of what the MSM is covering. They cover what is interesting. It isn’t a giant conspiracy to explain their behavior.
      - cudgy 5y ago
        Interesting is relative. In fact, many might find main stream media to be the opposite of interesting.
        peter422 5y ago
        MSM is by definition targeting the mainstream audience. Watch mainstream primetime television… It’s the same audience.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting His extradition hearing to see if this charge can be tried is currently facing an appeal, and he is still in prison partially for this charge.
        peter422 5y ago
        Not in an American court, for a non-American citizen, for something that happened 10 years ago. It just isn’t as interesting as you think it is. And it is getting coverage! It just isn’t front page news.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. And it isn't getting any major oublisher coverage, searching "Julian Assange" on both DDG and Google news shows only Democracy Now covering the story.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. > "These dramatic revelations emerged in an extensive article published on 26 June in Stundin." > Has the NYT covered them? I think the point is that the Assange story isn't that important or interesting anymore, so they don't breathlessly cover every development like some corners of the internet want to (and sometimes interpret the lack of breathless coverage as some kind of conspiracy).
  - 34679 5y ago
    >the Assange story isn't that important Do you realize that it's not hyperbole to say press freedom in the United States hinges on this case? American journalists have always been protected from prosecution for publishing factual information. If Assange is convicted, he will be the first. That would fundamentally change freedom of the press in the US.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      Assange isn't a US citizen. He's not charged with publishing the information but soliciting and attempting to assist in the exfiltration of the information. What Manning did was illegal whether you agree with her motivations or not. Soliciting someone with clearance to leak information and assisting them in the process is also illegal. It doesn't matter if Assange's assistance was effective or not. If all Assange did was publish information Manning brought to him, there would likely be no charges and they'd be easily dismissed otherwise. He'd have been clearly acting in the role as a journalist. But that's not what happened. Assange wants to be considered a journalist (with its protections) while at the same time playing spymaster and hacker.
      - anonymousiam 5y ago
        It's okay when CIA convinces some non-US citizen to become an agent and provide secrets from their government. All governments do this. Somehow it's different in Assange's case because he is not government entity.

k1m 5y ago

> the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. That's not about this news story. "These dramatic revelations emerged in an extensive article published on 26 June in Stundin." Has the NYT covered them? Here's an NYT search showing everything they published with the term "Assange" in the last month: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=20210702&query=assange&sort=best&startDate=20210602 https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=2021070...

jrumbut 5y ago
That was the point of my post, they aren't covering the proceedings minute by minute. They sum it up occasionally. There's a lot going on in the world, not everything can be covered urgently in a general interest publication. They don't have unlimited reporters.
- k1m 5y ago
  You're implying this is a minor development. It's really not. Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else. I agree with Media Lens: > 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.
  - peter422 5y ago
    You are implying this is a major story… it isn’t. If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting. Hearing more random court proceedings of a very bizarre 10 year fiasco is not. Everybody is a critic of what the MSM is covering. They cover what is interesting. It isn’t a giant conspiracy to explain their behavior.
    - cudgy 5y ago
      Interesting is relative. In fact, many might find main stream media to be the opposite of interesting.
      - peter422 5y ago
        MSM is by definition targeting the mainstream audience. Watch mainstream primetime television… It’s the same audience.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting His extradition hearing to see if this charge can be tried is currently facing an appeal, and he is still in prison partially for this charge.
      - peter422 5y ago
        Not in an American court, for a non-American citizen, for something that happened 10 years ago. It just isn’t as interesting as you think it is. And it is getting coverage! It just isn’t front page news.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. And it isn't getting any major oublisher coverage, searching "Julian Assange" on both DDG and Google news shows only Democracy Now covering the story.
tablespoon 5y ago
>> the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. > "These dramatic revelations emerged in an extensive article published on 26 June in Stundin." > Has the NYT covered them? I think the point is that the Assange story isn't that important or interesting anymore, so they don't breathlessly cover every development like some corners of the internet want to (and sometimes interpret the lack of breathless coverage as some kind of conspiracy).
- 34679 5y ago
  >the Assange story isn't that important Do you realize that it's not hyperbole to say press freedom in the United States hinges on this case? American journalists have always been protected from prosecution for publishing factual information. If Assange is convicted, he will be the first. That would fundamentally change freedom of the press in the US.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    Assange isn't a US citizen. He's not charged with publishing the information but soliciting and attempting to assist in the exfiltration of the information. What Manning did was illegal whether you agree with her motivations or not. Soliciting someone with clearance to leak information and assisting them in the process is also illegal. It doesn't matter if Assange's assistance was effective or not. If all Assange did was publish information Manning brought to him, there would likely be no charges and they'd be easily dismissed otherwise. He'd have been clearly acting in the role as a journalist. But that's not what happened. Assange wants to be considered a journalist (with its protections) while at the same time playing spymaster and hacker.
    - anonymousiam 5y ago
      It's okay when CIA convinces some non-US citizen to become an agent and provide secrets from their government. All governments do this. Somehow it's different in Assange's case because he is not government entity.