5 ms·

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/S

by 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?
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition. > 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? I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial. > the only trial left is the US one. The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.
- mpfundstein 5y ago
  man you are nuts. cant say it differently
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines like this. It poisons the ecosystem here, and it discredits your view. The latter is especially pernicious if your view happens to be the right one, because then you're also discrediting the truth, which harms everybody (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: yikes, you've been breaking the site guidelines a ton lately. When accounts are primarily using HN for ideological or political battle, we ban them; also when they're mostly posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments; and you've been doing both of these things. That's not cool. We've also had to warn you several times about this in the past. I don't want to ban you because you've posted good and relevant comments in the past, but if you don't stop this pattern, we're definitely going to have to. Please stop this pattern.
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.

by k1m 5y ago

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?
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition. > 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? I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial. > the only trial left is the US one. The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.
mpfundstein 5y ago
man you are nuts. cant say it differently
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't break the site guidelines like this. It poisons the ecosystem here, and it discredits your view. The latter is especially pernicious if your view happens to be the right one, because then you're also discrediting the truth, which harms everybody (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: yikes, you've been breaking the site guidelines a ton lately. When accounts are primarily using HN for ideological or political battle, we ban them; also when they're mostly posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments; and you've been doing both of these things. That's not cool. We've also had to warn you several times about this in the past. I don't want to ban you because you've posted good and relevant comments in the past, but if you don't stop this pattern, we're definitely going to have to. Please stop this pattern.

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.