7 ms·

I've often been surprised to see enthusiastic admiration for Craig Murray in this forum in particular. He's an outright raving conspiracy theorist, in this case

I've often been surprised to see enthusiastic admiration for Craig Murray in this forum in particular. He's an outright raving conspiracy theorist, in this case painfully obviously sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial in part because of his belief that the trial was part of a massive state conspiracy. His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information, so it was very strange to see him so heavily promoted. It just seems like it would be possible you might object to the treatment of Assange—or be concerned about the trial's effect on free speech—without weirdly uncritical promotion of such an unreliable and unsympathetic narrator. At least it would be wise to treat anything he says with extreme skepticism.

gadders 5y ago
>> sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy.
- matthewmacleod 5y ago
  > Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? Yes. Feel free to read the court's judgment for more information. > And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy. I think it's safe to say that this statement demonstrates you are not interested in any good-faith discussion on this matter.
- seanhunter 5y ago
  This case literally is the citation. He was found to have done this, which is why he will go to jail.
  - gadders 5y ago
    Yes, no miscarriages of justice have ever happened anywhere, and the judiciary is infallible.
imwillofficial 5y ago
> outright raving conspiracy theorist I guess in this instance “They” were really out to get Him, eh?
imwillofficial 5y ago
> obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information You mean to tell me He was obvious on His position? He didn’t pretend to be objective, an impossible effort for any human? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! My friend, that’s a feature, not a bug. Journalistic objectivity is a meme.
upofadown 5y ago
Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies? Conspiracy theorists don't typically report on real conspiracies, they report on imagined ones. So having a conspiracy theorist report on a real conspiracy can actually have the effect of making the real conspiracy less believable (e.g. a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but you'll disbelieve it even then).
  - semanticsbitch 5y ago
    So said absolutely nothing new here and ignored the question asked to you
- 0110101001 5y ago
  He claimed that he received the DNC and Podesta e-mails from a disgruntled DNC source in a park and forwarded them to WikiLeaks on Assange's behalf. He lacks any credibility. Even Assange had to tell people that "Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks," afterwards.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Anyone reading this is free to make of Murray what they want but I genuinely think he is a textbook useful idiot. He obviously has a grudge against the west, sometimes he's a useful counterpoint but other times he's literally just spreading FUD in favour of whoever is not the west (i.e. they weren't GRU agents, they were a gay couple, honest!)
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Literally anyone would be better to report on it. Conspiracy theorists are absolutely awful at reporting facts. When talking about things that are actually true, they often still manage to mix in so many untrue and misleading things that the actual truth gets clouded.
ameminator 5y ago
All these things may be true, but even then, at least he was there at the Assange trial. No other source was a as diligent or up to date with their reporting, even if it was biased. Even if you believe all these bad things about him, I don't believe someone should be jailed for reporting in general. In specific, I don't see how the facts support a conviction - the way the argument for "jigsaw" identification of witnesses was used could apply to any and all reporting about a court case. No reasonable standard was used (in my opinion). Do you think it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them?
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  What part of GP's post made you think they supporting jailing people you don't like?
  - ameminator 5y ago
    Well, it seemed implied to me. The original post was about Craig Murray being sent to jail. There are other comments in this thread coming out in support of (or at least against the imprisonment of) Murray. Then, the parent comment comes out, listing a whole bunch of reasons not to like Murray, or at least not to support him. So the implication, as I see it, is that the parent commenter is alright with Murray going to jail. Maybe you're right and that I read too much into it. However, I'd like to resolve this part that's unclear - does the parent commenter support putting Murray in jail? Is it because they don't like him?
    - matthewmacleod 5y ago
      I ignored this because I considered it a disingenuous question, but maybe I should tackle it instead because this sort of misrepresentation is poisonous. No, I obviously do not think "it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them". There's no reasonable way to construe that from what I said. I think the intent of my comment was clearly to express surprise that people take him seriously as a commentator; as someone who has been unfortunately very aware of his views for a long time, it seems obvious to me that he is an unreliable narrator and any information he presents is something we should be extremely skeptical of. I do think that it can be acceptable to imprison people for contempt of court. I am pretty familiar with the case in question, and I have no reason to think that any conspiracy was required in order to convict him. I watched him do the things he's been convicted for as they happened, and his intent seemed reasonably clear. So yes, to answer your direct question – I do "support" putting Murray in jail, in the sense that he appears to have received a fair trial for committing a crime, and I don't see any evidence that his conviction was unexpected or unreasonable. Spinning this as me saying "it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them" is obviously a bad-faith representation.
probably_wrong 5y ago
> His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information I don't know anything about his other works, but AFAIK he was the only one reporting what was going on in detail during Assange's trial. I respect him for that. I read criticism similar to yours before, but I can't shake a simple question: if there are better reporters out there, where were they during the trial?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Traster 5y ago
  The simple answer is that what Craig Murray was reporting about Assange was massively overblown conspiracies about every single element of the trial. The reason other reporters weren't covering to the same level of detail because "Trial continues as expected" isn't news-and there are plenty of examples of this. In the mainstream news the big revelation that someone just tangentially related to the Assange extradition hearing had come out as a liar was covered, but in the context of it not really being core to the case. In Murray's coverage you would be mislead to believe that that person was some star witness.
the_optimist 5y ago
Do you think it’s acceptable to persecute people who don’t agree with you? Who you don’t like? Equal rights under the law means equal rights. Not that you defend your friends, hang your enemies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Couldn't this argument basically be used against any court case short of there being footage of the defendant holding a gun next to a body? You can nearly always construe some kind of narrative like this in a "political" case, I'm not sure it's specific enough.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    No. Because - until recently - government critics rarely ended up in court.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      But you're kind of doing it now. You could be right, but currently the reference point of our comments is the political aspect to the case rather than whether he committed a crime or not.
    - lazide 5y ago
      That's pretty clearly not true - there have always been politically motivated prosecutions, witchhunts, and shady dealings of various flavors in every government I've been able to find decent records for. Recently here in the US, it's been everything from 'The Red Scare' and McCarthyism to Hoover era FBI attacking and undermining every 'revolutionary' group that wasn't upholding the status quo in the 60's-70's - and many more. That includes everything from attempted blackmail on Martin Luther King to COINTELPRO (documented, not a conspiracy theory). And that's what has leaked - there is almost certainly more that never had a solid paper trail.
- 5y ago

gadders 5y ago

>> sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy.

matthewmacleod 5y ago
> Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? Yes. Feel free to read the court's judgment for more information. > And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy. I think it's safe to say that this statement demonstrates you are not interested in any good-faith discussion on this matter.
seanhunter 5y ago
This case literally is the citation. He was found to have done this, which is why he will go to jail.
- gadders 5y ago
  Yes, no miscarriages of justice have ever happened anywhere, and the judiciary is infallible.

imwillofficial 5y ago

> outright raving conspiracy theorist I guess in this instance “They” were really out to get Him, eh?

imwillofficial 5y ago

> obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information You mean to tell me He was obvious on His position? He didn’t pretend to be objective, an impossible effort for any human? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! My friend, that’s a feature, not a bug. Journalistic objectivity is a meme.

upofadown 5y ago

Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies?

tablespoon 5y ago
> Who better than a conspiracy theorist to report on actual conspiracies? Conspiracy theorists don't typically report on real conspiracies, they report on imagined ones. So having a conspiracy theorist report on a real conspiracy can actually have the effect of making the real conspiracy less believable (e.g. a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but you'll disbelieve it even then).
- semanticsbitch 5y ago
  So said absolutely nothing new here and ignored the question asked to you
0110101001 5y ago
He claimed that he received the DNC and Podesta e-mails from a disgruntled DNC source in a park and forwarded them to WikiLeaks on Assange's behalf. He lacks any credibility. Even Assange had to tell people that "Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks," afterwards.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Anyone reading this is free to make of Murray what they want but I genuinely think he is a textbook useful idiot. He obviously has a grudge against the west, sometimes he's a useful counterpoint but other times he's literally just spreading FUD in favour of whoever is not the west (i.e. they weren't GRU agents, they were a gay couple, honest!)
user-the-name 5y ago
Literally anyone would be better to report on it. Conspiracy theorists are absolutely awful at reporting facts. When talking about things that are actually true, they often still manage to mix in so many untrue and misleading things that the actual truth gets clouded.

ameminator 5y ago

All these things may be true, but even then, at least he was there at the Assange trial. No other source was a as diligent or up to date with their reporting, even if it was biased. Even if you believe all these bad things about him, I don't believe someone should be jailed for reporting in general. In specific, I don't see how the facts support a conviction - the way the argument for "jigsaw" identification of witnesses was used could apply to any and all reporting about a court case. No reasonable standard was used (in my opinion). Do you think it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them?

ChrisKnott 5y ago
What part of GP's post made you think they supporting jailing people you don't like?
- ameminator 5y ago
  Well, it seemed implied to me. The original post was about Craig Murray being sent to jail. There are other comments in this thread coming out in support of (or at least against the imprisonment of) Murray. Then, the parent comment comes out, listing a whole bunch of reasons not to like Murray, or at least not to support him. So the implication, as I see it, is that the parent commenter is alright with Murray going to jail. Maybe you're right and that I read too much into it. However, I'd like to resolve this part that's unclear - does the parent commenter support putting Murray in jail? Is it because they don't like him?
  - matthewmacleod 5y ago
    I ignored this because I considered it a disingenuous question, but maybe I should tackle it instead because this sort of misrepresentation is poisonous. No, I obviously do not think "it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them". There's no reasonable way to construe that from what I said. I think the intent of my comment was clearly to express surprise that people take him seriously as a commentator; as someone who has been unfortunately very aware of his views for a long time, it seems obvious to me that he is an unreliable narrator and any information he presents is something we should be extremely skeptical of. I do think that it can be acceptable to imprison people for contempt of court. I am pretty familiar with the case in question, and I have no reason to think that any conspiracy was required in order to convict him. I watched him do the things he's been convicted for as they happened, and his intent seemed reasonably clear. So yes, to answer your direct question – I do "support" putting Murray in jail, in the sense that he appears to have received a fair trial for committing a crime, and I don't see any evidence that his conviction was unexpected or unreasonable. Spinning this as me saying "it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them" is obviously a bad-faith representation.

probably_wrong 5y ago

> His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information I don't know anything about his other works, but AFAIK he was the only one reporting what was going on in detail during Assange's trial. I respect him for that. I read criticism similar to yours before, but I can't shake a simple question: if there are better reporters out there, where were they during the trial?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Traster 5y ago
The simple answer is that what Craig Murray was reporting about Assange was massively overblown conspiracies about every single element of the trial. The reason other reporters weren't covering to the same level of detail because "Trial continues as expected" isn't news-and there are plenty of examples of this. In the mainstream news the big revelation that someone just tangentially related to the Assange extradition hearing had come out as a liar was covered, but in the context of it not really being core to the case. In Murray's coverage you would be mislead to believe that that person was some star witness.

the_optimist 5y ago

Do you think it’s acceptable to persecute people who don’t agree with you? Who you don’t like? Equal rights under the law means equal rights. Not that you defend your friends, hang your enemies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mhh__ 5y ago
Couldn't this argument basically be used against any court case short of there being footage of the defendant holding a gun next to a body? You can nearly always construe some kind of narrative like this in a "political" case, I'm not sure it's specific enough.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  No. Because - until recently - government critics rarely ended up in court.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    But you're kind of doing it now. You could be right, but currently the reference point of our comments is the political aspect to the case rather than whether he committed a crime or not.
  - lazide 5y ago
    That's pretty clearly not true - there have always been politically motivated prosecutions, witchhunts, and shady dealings of various flavors in every government I've been able to find decent records for. Recently here in the US, it's been everything from 'The Red Scare' and McCarthyism to Hoover era FBI attacking and undermining every 'revolutionary' group that wasn't upholding the status quo in the 60's-70's - and many more. That includes everything from attempted blackmail on Martin Luther King to COINTELPRO (documented, not a conspiracy theory). And that's what has leaked - there is almost certainly more that never had a solid paper trail.
5y ago