11 ms·

> 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 a

by 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.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. Yes, the USA is charging him. It would be very odd for extradition hearings on US federal charges to be heard in a US court, and, in fact, these are not. Assange is not on trial, and the process he is currently undergoing in is not in an American court, though there are charges pending that he would face in a US court if that process completes as the US prefers. I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    Assange was an interesting story with him trapped in the embassy and his cat pooping but now it consists of more mundane legal proceedings. One is a made for TV spy thriller. The other is discussion of paperwork.
  - tablespoon 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." What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort. You're treating him like he's some generic authority, who's pronouncements on any subject carry weight. That's weird.
    - xbar 5y ago
      He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences. I think your response is not weird but disingenuous.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >>> Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." >> What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort. > He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences. Maybe so, but I wouldn't hire him as my lawyer or rely on his judgements about when a legal case will fail. It's the difference between thinking about the consequences of a technology and building/operating that technology. For instance, someone might be an expert on the pernicious social effects of Facebook, but would flame out if they actually worked as a developer there. Snowden more than likely doesn't have the technical knowledge of the British legal system for him to reliably tell the difference between a major and minor development, let alone make trustworthy prediction about the future outcome of the whole thing.
      - dang 5y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack. Disingenuous is a fancy way of saying liar, which implies intent to deceive. That's not a legit move in forum discussions where you can't know the other person's intent. Please make your substantive points without that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    That last line isn't news, but pure opinion. Stories about 'the media' tend to be propagandistic, in my experience.
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.

by k1m 5y ago

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.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. Yes, the USA is charging him. It would be very odd for extradition hearings on US federal charges to be heard in a US court, and, in fact, these are not. Assange is not on trial, and the process he is currently undergoing in is not in an American court, though there are charges pending that he would face in a US court if that process completes as the US prefers. I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Assange was an interesting story with him trapped in the embassy and his cat pooping but now it consists of more mundane legal proceedings. One is a made for TV spy thriller. The other is discussion of paperwork.
- tablespoon 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." What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort. You're treating him like he's some generic authority, who's pronouncements on any subject carry weight. That's weird.
  - xbar 5y ago
    He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences. I think your response is not weird but disingenuous.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >>> Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." >> What does Snowden know? He's not a lawyer of any sort. > He is broadly considered a generic authority based on his long, deep thinking and publications about leaks and legal consequences. Maybe so, but I wouldn't hire him as my lawyer or rely on his judgements about when a legal case will fail. It's the difference between thinking about the consequences of a technology and building/operating that technology. For instance, someone might be an expert on the pernicious social effects of Facebook, but would flame out if they actually worked as a developer there. Snowden more than likely doesn't have the technical knowledge of the British legal system for him to reliably tell the difference between a major and minor development, let alone make trustworthy prediction about the future outcome of the whole thing.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't cross into personal attack. Disingenuous is a fancy way of saying liar, which implies intent to deceive. That's not a legit move in forum discussions where you can't know the other person's intent. Please make your substantive points without that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  That last line isn't news, but pure opinion. Stories about 'the media' tend to be propagandistic, in my experience.

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.