Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched | Hacker News Reader

Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched

craigmurray.org.uk

17 pointshenearkr13 comments

While I was reading the linked complaint [0], I found some redacted passages. I've restored them using the original sources [1]:

> The Salmond Affair indeed stinks to high heaven and no aspect of it stinks more than the role in steering the affair, throughout, of Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff. Lloyd is also known to be personally friendly with David Clegg of the Daily Record who published what were claimed to be leaked details of one of the “allegations” against Salmond.

I find it interesting how the complaint includes the voices of hoi polloi, both in support of and in critique of Murray's behavior. I find their timbre delicious, as they seem unaware that they are contributing to the delegitimization of the prosecutorial process.

[0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/04...

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/the-alex-sal...

For me it is clear that they want to prevent further journalistic coverage of the upcoming 2nd part of Assange's extradition trial.

We will be very lucky if any independent source will ever be able to report us what will happen in there.

Either that or the Scottish legal system takes a dim view of journalists identifying rape trial victims. Contrary to an explicit order of Court.

I doubt he’ll get time; I don’t believe he actually said who they were, just hinted at it. Probably a fine.

I hope so.

It would be good if his trial was finished before Assange's one is resuming.

I found his depiction of the first part very interesting, and there were very few sources of information besides him.

From my reading of the linked site, the person referred to is an advocate not a reporter. The headline is false.

Craig Murray? No he is a blogger, thus well inside the definition of a reporter in this web era. If you prefer I would change reporter into blogger. He is also a former diplomate, but that does not matter for this news.

Quoting Craig Murray:

"Then on Tuesday morning, a large Police van full of police pulled up onto the pavement right outside my front gate, actually while I was talking on the phone to a senior political figure about the raid on my friend. The police just sat in the van staring at my house. I contacted my lawyers who contacted the Crown Office. The police van pulled away and my lawyers contacted me back to say that the Crown Office had told them I would be charged, or officially “cited”, with Contempt of Court, but they agreed there was no need for a search of my home or to remove my devices, or for vans full of police."

> From the linked site: Only supporters of Alex Salmond – the Alex Salmond found innocent by the jury – are being pursued by this continuing Police Scotland operation.

When you become a "supporter", you cease to be a journalist. You become an advocate.

He is committed to Assange's cause, that's right.

However he allowed very precious information on how the trial was held to reach the public.

This is why his reporting, while not neutral, is very important.

I have not used the term "journalist" but reporter in the original title. Is "reporter" inaccurate too in your opinion?

As I understand it, the United Kingdom does not have shield laws, nor does the European Union have any analogous binding legislation. This would mean that there is no such thing, in the United Kingdom, as "a reporter", or "a journalist", or etc. The closest that they might have are the employees of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is royally chartered.

I bring this up mostly because you seem to have some sort of distinction in your mind about whether some people are true journalists or not, but journalism is not a property of people. Journalism is an action and a subculture. The reason for legally distinguishing journalism and those who routinely practice it is to protect them from retaliation and the pressures of the powerful. If the UK were to have shield laws, then we would need to ensure that Murray's actions are congruent with the requirements of said law before we could say that he deserves said law's protection; however, since the UK appears to have no such law, we as a society ought to offer protection to anybody who acts like a journalist in the public interest.

Finally, the headline is not false based on your claim! The headline is "Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched", and indeed it seems that Murray's got a legal defense fund with some cash in it. Perhaps you object to the idea that independent journalists should be allowed to solicit funds for legal defense, but that does not falsify the headline.

Oh, and on the gripping hand, it is reprehensible for a government to conduct justice in the matter so far documented. Even if Murray were both subject to, and failing to meet the letter of, some hypothetical shield law, nonetheless we should absolutely be paying attention to this situation and pressuring the UK to be more transparent.

Hi, I appreciate a lot your defense of the view that Murray cannot be categorized easily.

However there is some confusion as the title of my submission has been changed by some moderator (not by me), from "Indictment of Craig Murray (Assange trial reporter)" to the current one of "Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched".

The moderator changing the title, or maybe some other user, found useful to flag my submission at the same time, which one of the effects has been that it never appeared on the HN front page (maybe for the best, given the kind of polarization the subject can sometimes provoke).

It was unflagged shortly after I asked by email the reasons of the flagging (but the email got no reply).

Thus the discussion was about whether the term "reporter" I use in my title was fair (and somehow it got strawmanned by becoming "journalist" in my critics' mouth). And part of my answer was that anyway Craig Murray was indeed reporting a lot of otherwise unknown details of the trial to the public.

Now in the title imposed by the moderator there isn't even the notion of indictment anymore.

In the indictment, there is a quote from Murray that states “I am arguably the most read journalist in Scotland”.

And I could say I am arguably the most admired blogger in Austin. The claim does not make it true. His site is complete with claims of activism, not journalism.

He's claiming to be a journalist because it is convenient, not because it is accurate. When you become an advocate or activist for a cause you cease to be a journalist, if ever you were one.

While Murray is sure on Assange side, his depiction of the trial is rich in details. This is not just one more piece of opinion.

Journalists also commonly blurt out their opinions in "editorials", that's part of "committed journalism", quite developed everywhere in the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com