Assange Watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Aug 2012, 21:23

emordnilap wrote:The Guardian's attitude is more worrying than the BBC's, I think. It used to be at least reasonably reliable, whereas with the beeb we could naturally expect some pressure from their paymasters.

What's the Guardian's agenda here? Why does it remind me of Monbiot's disappointing stance in specific areas?

The Guardian has published some pieces that are off beam but most of their journalism has been thoroughly pro Assange and Wiki-Leaks.
This was yesterday:

Saemus Milne on the media response:

Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... et-assange

And in today's Guardian Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... a-contempt
has to bead in full.

Excellent stuff in the Guardian, and, after all, they were the original publisher, along with the New York Times, of the Wiki-files.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 Aug 2012, 21:30

Fair enough. Maybe I have moth genes somewhere in me.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 22 Aug 2012, 21:55

biffvernon wrote:
emordnilap wrote:The Guardian's attitude is more worrying than the BBC's, I think. It used to be at least reasonably reliable, whereas with the beeb we could naturally expect some pressure from their paymasters.

What's the Guardian's agenda here? Why does it remind me of Monbiot's disappointing stance in specific areas?
The Guardian has published some pieces that are off beam but most of their journalism has been thoroughly pro Assange and Wiki-Leaks.
This was yesterday:

Saemus Milne on the media response:
Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... et-assange

And in today's Guardian Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... a-contempt
has to bead in full.

Excellent stuff in the Guardian, and, after all, they were the original publisher, along with the New York Times, of the Wiki-files.

These articles have only just appeared in the last twenty fours hours following what I think is a serious backlash of their slew of outrageous propagandist editorials judging by the comments pages and also my general impression on the twitisphere.

It's a bit f***ing late!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Aug 2012, 21:56

And Greenwald offers at least a partial explanation for why the British and US media appear so hostile towards Assange.

I find this more plausible than any real conspiracy within the BBC.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 Aug 2012, 22:21

biffvernon wrote:And Greenwald offers at least a partial explanation for why the British and US media appear so hostile towards Assange.

I find this more plausible than any real conspiracy within the BBC.

And thanks again for the link, it is really rather good. I'm glad someone else has made my point about the scot-free Bush/Blair murderers/rapists.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 22 Aug 2012, 22:23

biffvernon wrote:And Greenwald offers at least a partial explanation for why the British and US media appear so hostile towards Assange.

I find this more plausible than any real conspiracy within the BBC.

I don't; this explanation is pitiful. The damage has been done and these articles are a lame attempt to retain credibility and readers imo.

British newspapers have agreed not to publish the Prince Harry photos, despite being a massive potential seller. Why? Because they've been asked not to by royal aides .

British media is on the defensive and is not as free as it once was is my opinion. The establishment has been embarrassed enough and is in the process of taking back control.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Aug 2012, 22:46

Snail wrote:[
British newspapers have agreed not to publish the Prince Harry photos, despite being a massive potential seller. Why? Because they've been asked not to by royal aides .

Maybe the British newspapers should not publish pictures of anybody naked without their consent. Nothing special about a prince.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 22 Aug 2012, 23:04

The incident is an example of the change in UK media. Fear is influencing their publishing decisions now - not the case not so long ago. And this is ultimately bad for free-speech.

What was shocking about the Assange case was the fact that all the papers had the same opinion. No differing opinions. These royal decisions are similar. All the publications have decided on a universal viewpoint. I think this is bad.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 23 Aug 2012, 02:14

Snail wrote:The incident is an example of the change in UK media. Fear is influencing their publishing decisions now - not the case not so long ago. And this is ultimately bad for free-speech.

What was shocking about the Assange case was the fact that all the papers had the same opinion. No differing opinions. These royal decisions are similar. All the publications have decided on a universal viewpoint. I think this is bad.

The gloves are off. This is now an unambiguous and unabashed war against the people by those who would rule them. It is initially a war of words. It will a be war of men with guns before too long. mark my words.

The Riots in the club med, the riots here in the uk, the military adventures and illegal wars in the middle East, the pussy riot and Assange cases, Aubrey ,manning, CCTV on every street, Trapwire (Google it), the steady erosion of our free speech and liberty,.

They are all part of the same process

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 23 Aug 2012, 06:26

One of the things this saga's really brought home to me is how behind the technology-times I've gotten. I've never used twitter, facebook, or any of the other newer internet services. Never heard of trapwire even though I visit technology sites quite regulary. In all probability I wouldn't have made the effort to watch Assange live if the feeds weren't provided for me here. If the internet splinters, its likely I won't know how to get to the important stuff.

Yet information is becoming increasingly important. Assange proves it. If things deteriorate the way you're suggesting (and its trending that way), then I need to know what's what before decisions are made. If only for my future peace of mind, I need to know how to retrieve information which cuts through increasing amounts of establishment bullshit. Google mightn't be enough in a few years time.

I need to go back to computer school and readucate myself on modern computers and the internet.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Aug 2012, 07:18

Welcome to twitter, Snail.

And, for example, take a look at who I follow https://twitter.com/transitionlouth

My self selected newsfeed.

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 23 Aug 2012, 11:45

stevecook172001 wrote:
Snail wrote:The incident is an example of the change in UK media. Fear is influencing their publishing decisions now - not the case not so long ago. And this is ultimately bad for free-speech.

What was shocking about the Assange case was the fact that all the papers had the same opinion. No differing opinions. These royal decisions are similar. All the publications have decided on a universal viewpoint. I think this is bad.
The gloves are off. This is now an unambiguous and unabashed war against the people by those who would rule them. It is initially a war of words. It will a be war of men with guns before too long. mark my words.

The Riots in the club med, the riots here in the uk, the military adventures and illegal wars in the middle East, the pussy riot and Assange cases, Aubrey ,manning, CCTV on every street, Trapwire (Google it), the steady erosion of our free speech and liberty,.

They are all part of the same process

Lets not get into the 9/11 debate, but it was a great excuse to bring in technology like this.

http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwir ... leaks-313/

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 23 Aug 2012, 12:17

Here's a thought:

If I remember correctly two million US citizens are meant to have had access to the same information that Bradley Manning had.

This data contained information about torture, rendition, human rights abuses and war crimes, and yet only one person thought that something needed to be done and did it.

I think that's quite shocking. Why do people think this is- brainwashing? Fear? The other 1,999,999 people thought it was ok?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Aug 2012, 12:20

And then even that single one, Manning, was unsure and worried about what he did.

People will be creative in finding reasons not to jeopardise their pay packets.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 23 Aug 2012, 12:23

I've spent the last three days attempting to counter (along with others) the absolute avalanche of misinformation, propaganda and downright lies being pushed out on the comments pages of the scandalous Guardian articles (barring the couple of pieces that have been stuck in there last minute to give the illusion of "balance"). I now find my posts are "pre-moderated". I have asked for an explanation but have had no reply.

I also find that some of my previous posts have been deleted. I have been racking my brain and I think it may be whenever I make mention of the name of the Swedish prosecutor who persistently leaked the Assange investigation to the media. I could be wrong.

Something very fishy going on.