Hacker News Reader

Having read that, the Guardian's summary and the original interview, I find the Guardian's summary to be, by far, the more honest description of the interview (albeit not a perfect one). Greenwald's different personal interpretation (which he seems to believe invalidates the Guardian's interpretation as a complete fabrication) is merely the belief that when reporting the news (even while linking to the full account!), one must not explain or put into context, but merely repeat what was said, even if doing so distorts the event by taking it out of context. That is a valid opinion, but one which is very much rejected by most good journalists. Reporting news that way simply puts a rubber stamp of approval on propaganda unless most readers are well informed in the background of the story, an assumption that journalists must not make.

Also, Assange said those things in the actual interview (which the Guardian linked to):

> In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow.

So, given that the reality is that in Russia journalism is oppressed to levels that are rather extreme, that the media in the West is much more vibrant and critical of government than in Russia, and given that Assange obviously knows that, the Guardian's summary is not only valid, but pretty much the most reasonable one.

Does Assange imply that the state of independent media to be so much better in Russia than in the West that WL is needed elsewhere? Why does WL exist given the statement by Assange?

By now he's learned that a lot of people will support him no matter how little sense he makes, so he just engages in gaslighting full on, and then Glenn Greenwald tells the cheering inhabitants of bullshit mountain how it's newspapers like the Guardian that are really sources of fake news because they explain Assange's unhinged propaganda rather than just repeat it.

Greenwald is an occasionally decent writer with a penchant for over-exaggeration and finger pointing. I used to be an ardent fan of The Intercept, but more recently have noticed it becoming far angrier and politically charged. In addition, it seems far more willing to play fast and loose with the truth, lack citation, and generally falsify as much as it accuses. Leading to the current state of the comments section on there where anyone who would rather take a more nuanced pragmatic view of things is called a "shill" by some bleating anti-authoritarian sheep.

http://www.newsbud.com/2013/12/11/bfp-breaking-news-omidyars...

(Is Newsbud classified as "Fake News" by the "ministry of truth" ?)

I beg your pardon? Where exactly did I accuse anyone of distributing "Fake News"? I was merely lamenting the slide of a publication, of which I used to respect the views and content, from champion of fact, and keen-eyed investigative journalism to another angry editorialist internet rag. Which, seems to increasingly fail to let the truth get in the way of their click-thru rate. TI's shameful behaviour during the recent incredibly dirty (on both sides) US election wasn't to stand back and give careful considered analysis, but rather pick an enemy and jump into the fray both feet first.

Interesting, since Assange accused the Guardian of sharing cables (meant for reporting) with the Mossad.

Well, everybody knows the basic threat model from which all threat models are derived is: "Mossad or Not-Mossad?"[0].

[0] https://vimeo.com/95066828