Amelia Hill is a Dirty Liar 1172

The Guardian hit a new low in Amelia Hill’s report on Julian Assange’s appearance at the Oxford Union. Hill moved beyond propaganda to downright lies.

This is easy to show. Read through Hill’s “report”. Then zip to 20 minutes and 55 seconds of the recording of Assange speaking at the event Hill misreports, and simply listen to the applause from the Oxford Union after Assange stops speaking.

Just that hearty applause is sufficient to show that the entire thrust and argument of Amelia Hill’s article moves beyong distortion or misreprentation – in themselves dreadful sins in a journalist – and into the field of outright lies. Her entire piece is intended to give the impression that the event was a failure and the audience were hostile to Assange. That is completely untrue.

Much of what Hill wrote is not journalism at all. What does this actually mean?

“His critics were reasoned, those who queued for over an hour in the snow to hear him speak were thoughtful. It was Julian Assange – the man at the centre of controversy – who refused to be gracious.”

Hill manages to quote five full sentences of the organiser of the anti-Assange demonstration (which I counted at 37 people) while giving us not one single sentence of Assange’s twenty minute address. Nor a single sentence of Tom Fingar, the senior US security official who was receiving the Sam Adams award. Even more remarkably, all three students Hill could find to interview were hostile to Assange. In a hall of 450 students who applauded Assange enthusiastically and many of whom crowded round to shake my hand after the event, Hill was apparently unable to find a single person who did not share the Rusbridger line on Julian Assange.

Hill is not a journalist – she is a pathetic grovelling lickspittle who should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

Here is the answer to the question about cyber-terrorism of which Amelia Hill writes:

“A question about cyber-terrorism was greeted with verbose warmth”

As you can see, Assange’s answer is serious, detailed, thoughtful and not patronising to the student. Hill’s characterisation – again without giving a word of Assange’s actual answer – is not one that could genuinely be maintained. Can anybody – and I mean this as a real question – can anybody look at that answer and believe that “Verbose warmth” is a fair and reasonable way to communicate what had been said to an audience who had not seen it? Or is it just an appalling piece of hostile propaganda by Hill?

The night before Assange’s contribution at the union, John Bolton had been there as guest speaker. John Bolton is a war criminal whose actions deliberately and directly contributed to the launching of an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet there had not been one single Oxford student picketing the hosting of John Bolton, and Amelia Hill did not turn up to vilify him. My main contribution to the Sam Adams event was to point to this as an example of the way people are manipulated by the mainstream media into adopting seriously warped moral values.

Amelia Hill is one of the warpers, the distorters of reality. The Guardian calls her a “Special Investigative Correspondent.” She is actually a degraded purveyor of lies on behalf of the establishment. Sickening.

1,172 thoughts on “Amelia Hill is a Dirty Liar

1 38 39 40
  • Clark

    But CE, AA encouraged SW to visit a police station, and arranged for SW to speak to the specific police officer IK, a long time friend and campaigning colleague. Some days later, AA submitted evidence that you think she probably tampered with:

    SW refused to sign a statement, and subsequently complained to her friends that she’s been overrun by the police and did not want the action they were taking.

    CE, you should think very carefully about what you’re encouraging here. None of us want to live in a police state. We need to be able to trust the police to serve the public. A police officer shouldn’t take matters out of the hands of a member of the public because that officer has a friend in politics.

    Do you see my point, CE? It looks as though SW has been used by AA and IK, working together. Those who ignore this, and falsely describe SW as “a complainant”, become accomplices themselves. They seem to think that prosecuting Assange is more important than SW’s wishes.

  • Jemand - Keep Speech Free


    Bob Carr, retired NSW Premier,  a year ago –

    ”The Swedish judge is prosecutor . . . yes, the two roles in the one officer, an outrage by Australian standards,” Mr Carr wrote. ”The charge includes rape but the sex was consensual. The victims have exchanged emails talking revenge and money.”

    Senator Bob Carr, Australia’s Foreign Minister, now –

    .. promptly distanced himself from these and other comments once he was appointed Foreign Minister, saying that they were the views of a private individual and did not necessarily reflect the positions he would adopt as a member of the Federal Labor Government.

    Read more:

1 38 39 40

Comments are closed.