Hacker News Reader

Comment by thanosnose | Hacker News Reader

> But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent.

One of the most interesting aspect of the assange story is how the news industry celebrated assange in the early part of the 2010s and then started to demonize him in the past few years. It was all so sudden as if someone flipped a switch and everyone got on the same message.

It's also interesting how sexual assault accusations were used to take down assange just like it was used for kavanaugh.

View on HN

Assange and Wikileaks have been demonised because they decided to release information in such a way as to deliberately influence an election.

The DNC/Podesta leaks were timed specifically to cause maximum negative effect to Clinton and the Democrats.

Then there's the lack of curation in some of the leaks. A lot of personal data that shouldn't be public by any means (e.g. medical information, sexual identity) has been leaked by Wikileaks. There is a limit to what information should be open and available to the public.

I also can't help but feel like they've stopped being transparency campaigners and whistleblowers, and now do it for the social media spectacle and publicity. Just look at how they released Vault 7, with their viral cryptic posts before the release. Wikileaks feels more like a media agency than a group of transparency crusaders these days.

Exactly as you state (though maybe not intend). Those cheering him on didn't care about the reasons, lack of curation, content choice, etc since they were ok with who was maligned. Once those cheering him disagreed with who was hurt, it starts to "feel" different and concerns about reason, lack of curation, and content choice magically become important.

If that's the real reason, then it must also be asked if there was any special influence by Assanage on the timing or if a service created by them was merely used as a conduit.

>Assange and Wikileaks have been demonised because they decided to release information in such a way as to deliberately influence an election

Wikileaks has always been anti-US, when they finally manage to deliver a good punch they’re suddenly a bad actor?

> also can't help but feel like they've stopped being transparency campaigners and whistleblowers, and now do it for the social media spectacle and publicity. Just look at how they released Vault 7, with their viral cryptic posts before the release. Wikileaks feels more like a media agency than a group of transparency crusaders

Publicity brings more leaks. They’re simply doing a good job.

> The DNC/Podesta leaks were timed specifically to cause maximum negative effect to Clinton and the Democrats.

What's wrong with this? Assange didn't steal this information, he just published it. That's the freedom of speech.

Also, US wants to prosecute Assange not because of leak of personal information, but rather because of political reasons. Only because he is against the wars that US started in the Middle East.

Come on.

If the best a state level actor can do to "bring down" a person, they'd most likely manage something more untoward than "had consensual sex with someone, but questionable consent over the use of a condom".

I think that more points to a narcissistic type, than a conspiracy on a state bent on character assassination.=

Why would you be surprised by ineptitude, or willingness to conspire, here, anyways? You should read about the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran Contra, watch the documentary 1971(1), McCarthyism, the FBI's dealings with MLK, or read about Gary Webb. It's not surprising.

The FBI apparently sent agents to other countries trying to frame Assange. Iceland told them to fuck off: www.katoikos.eu/interview/icelandic-minister-who-refused-cooperation-with-the-fbi-ogmundur-jonasson-in-an-interview.html

Many also claim Assange has proof he was conspired against, or at least was innocent: https://abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-publi...

1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_(2014_film)

You would be doing me a grave injustice to think I am an apologist for the US government, in either colored administration (blue or red), to think that I am blind to their misdeeds, such as the "original" 9/11, the day Pinochet was installed.

And well, as someone who grew up in Australia, that article is full of nothings:

- while 'rape' is used repeatedly, no-one, including either the woman involved, nor the prosecutor has ever claimed that rape or non-consensual sex occurred, only that there was a "disagreement about the use of condoms".

- In the statement Mr Assange says he has been subjected to "six years of unlawful, politicised detention without charge" - well, yes. He does say that. Others say he has subjected _himself_ to detention and exile.

- these are all claims of Assange, who hasn't released any of the text messages, just said "he has [some, but not all] of them

So when you say "Many also claim", the more accurate statement is "Assange claims".

No, you're just misinformed, ignorant, or being disingenuous. There is a large community whom claim this, and I even linked you to the PM of Iceland claiming that he has been conspired agaist. His story is very much contested and debated. Many claim one of the rape victims in fact claimed to have been coerced and subsequently recanted(1).

1-https://medium.com/@helen.buyniski/free-julian-assange-or-yo...

I think his case will be closely studied for years.

And it is how propaganda works. There is no coordination between the 5 or 6 or however many media outlets but it seems as if there is turn almost based on how quickly he went from a martir to Russian puppet in just a year or less.

Same thing kind of happened to Greenwald though to a lesser degree.

The consensus is that Greenwald isn't a Russian agent. He's just stupid. His reporting has consistently had large and obvious errors at least since he was writing for Common Dreams.

Examples?

This is a strong claim. Please provide evidence.

Strong claim? It's obvious to anybody who has read his work and is even a tiny bit familiar with the things he is reporting about.

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/prism-prob...

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248?s...

How would you compare his reporting to the likes of CNN and FOX?

Shep Smith and the news anchors at CNN at least do a reasonable job of reporting the news correctly (which Greenwald can't), though none of those does strong investigative journalism.

Ok can you give me a couple of examples of these egregious errors by Greenwald you're talking about?

Seriously? The first time most people heard of Greenwald was his PRISM reporting, which was so wrong that when I thought about how many separate errors he had to combine to come up with that one article alone, I was in awe that he was able to sneak that by an editor.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18466438

> There is no coordination between the 5 or 6 or however many media outlets

What evidence do you have for that claim?

Was mainly going by this book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

It's well known and has good research on how multiple media outlets can produce the same output basically.

Did you mean they do explicitly coordinate? I haven't seen or heard of that happening. Not that it's impossible.

You say this like the perception of him is entirely manufactured and divorced from any reality. Assange's image changed abruptly in 2016 because that is the year he went from politically agnostic public interest leaks to actively trying to influence an election and backing a candidate who considers the free press an "enemy of the people". It doesn't take a conspiratorial cabal to explain how Assange ruined his own image.

Its really amazing that you would try to defend free press in a discussion about Assange. Locking up Assange is an attack on free press. Trump calling CNN liars actually isn't. Obama calling Fox liars wouldn't be either.

That some believe pre-2016 leaks were not political shows more about their bias than Wikileaks's motives. That motive matters now and didn't then shows similar bias.

Exactly what bias are you alluding to here? It certainly isn't the usual partisan hackery, as that would imply Democrats would hate pre-2016 wikileaks for damaging their president, and continue hating it post 2016 for helping the other guy. It would also imply Republican's would have liked wikileaks pre and post 2016. Instead what we see is a huge about face on both sides. I'm not being flippant here, I legit do not know what you are talking about.

W trained the press not to ask hard questions and keep to the provided script.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com