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.
Thanks for that Mary, nothing if not predictable! 😆
Well, CE, Saint Mary’s character assassination didn’t take long to appear, did it? (17 minutes after your post, in fact).
Death, Taxes, and snide comments from Mary.
As Jives so wisely said on the newer thread
Jives
9 Feb, 2013 – 1:41 am
Just ignore the troll.
We’ve tried to ignore you Mary, but your utter hypocrisy and dare I say, blinkered cultish devotion is just too ridiculous to let it pass without comment.
I will try harder in future! 😉
CE, I read your link, and there isn’t a scrap of evidence to support the assertions it contains. It said that “it is difficult not to read between the lines of Her Excellency’s November suggestion that Assange must be allowed to leave for medical treatment”, so I read that, too, and found no hint of any such implication there, either.
Nothing. Nada. Empty.
?
Villager; “but did Res Diss answer your question of whether if he were in JA’s shoes, he would happily walk out of the Embassy and fly to Sweden, without any assurances re onward rendition/extradition to the US?”
Of course not, as it’s the same question that I was always trying to get him to answer. No hypocritical “face the music” Assange critic can honestly answer this, as it will show just how irrational their position is.
Clark; “Resident dissident is not a shill.”
Not smart enough for sure; ironic as he initially engaged with me because he objected that I described Posters like him as being troll-like as their positions are always impossible in trying to defend the indefensible; so the validity of my assertion is unwittingly proven correct again by one who took indignant exception to it !
CE; “Death, Taxes, and snide comments from Mary.”
On the contrary almost all I ever see from you is exactly snide comments like this.
Thankfully most of us who are not bail-skippers or alleged rapists, have no wish or desire to place ourselves in JA’s somewhat soiled shoes.
What an absolutely ridiculous condition to place on the validity of someone’s views.
CE, sorry, I can’t work out what you’re replying to.
Good morning Clark, hope you are well.
I was referring to Mackay@ 9.14
Villager has also been pushing this nonsensical ‘what would you do?’ line.
CE, good morning to you, too. Yes, people get frustrated. When I have sufficient emotional resources myself (which isn’t always), I try to calm things down.
I’m a committed fence-sitter, so such frustrations tend to play out within my own inner awareness, and thus I feel sympathy for both sides.
The trouble is, I just can’t think with an internal row in progress; I just have to calm myself… All that jeering and booing; it reminds me of the House of Commons. Ghastly.
CE; “What an absolutely ridiculous condition to place on the validity of someone’s views.”
Asking somebody to answer what they would do in a situation that they criticise others for doing, is part normal debate, part of logical reasoning to ascertain if their criticism is rational & valid.
Anymore troll & empty snide remarks ?
“Anymore troll & empty snide remarks ?”
Seconds thoughts, don’t bother; I’m going to take a break from dealing with trolls, and leave this dubious pleasure to others for a while.
Julian Assange was a guest on last night’s episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher”, aired at 10PM ET on HBO.
http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/real-time-with-bill-maher-blog/2013/2/7/guest-list-february-8-2013.html
Should anyone find a link to that interview i’d be grateful if they could link it here. Thank you.
::::
CLARK, when i tried thru HBO i got a ‘blocked plug-in’ screen–can you pls translate that for me. Thanks
CE
Would your numerous short posts this morning have anything to do with this?
A Gentleperson’s guide to forum spies:
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Technique #1 – ‘FORUM SLIDING’
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum – it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
or this?
http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
The original Swedish-language leaked police protocol. It’s attached as a pdf to that article, on page 77 of which you will find the exact page of the Swedish police forensic report confirming there’s no DNA whatsoever, male OR female, on the ‘torn’, used-looking condom Anna Ardin handed in to police as evidence of her allegations.
The forensic report looks at whether the condom has been cut, most likely with scissors or a blade, although the UK High Court judges declare the forensic result looks like wear and tear (judgment, paragraph 94). Either way – deliberately cut by Ardin or damaged during sex through wear and tear – indicates Assange’s innocence, but not half as much as the fact that the condom has no DNA on it at all.
And, just to be clear, the Swedish police received that DNA forensic report – or should I say that ‘no DNA on this “used” condom’ forensic report? – back from the SKA (Swedish National Forensic Laboratory) on 25 OCTOBER 2010.
As I said earlier, plenty of time for the Swedish police to get charges for making false allegations processed before bothering the international courts with an EAW warrant for a non-existent crime…
Villager, 11.12am
This link worked for me and I often have trouble viewing videos because I refuse to allow Adobe Flash Player anywhere near my PC:
http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/real-time-with-bill-maher-blog/2013/2/8/interview-with-julian-assange.html
Arbed/Clark
i’m getting this msg
“Adobe Flash Player” is out of date.
And asking me to download an update–how safe is this. I had some trouble when i was updating my OS X on my apple laptop which first ended up in a black screen and eventually recovered after a couple of hard boot and leaving it off for an hour, so i don’t want to grt hung. altho its been working fine since then…
Anyone?…
thanks in advance
anyway, meantime am watching this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3-1olMcy0&feature=youtu.be
Geoffrey Robertson speaks on the fate of Assange
LOL@arbed
Hands up, you got me! Better resign my MI5 commission now you’ve blown my cover! 🙂
Or maybe I’m just busy at work this morning. But as with your blinkered defence of Brand JA, don’t let the truth get in the way of a misplaced, paranoid, world view.
Have a nice day, better report to M for my next mission.
CE don’t flatter yourself. The I presumably stands for intelligence something you are devoid of. Since the Assange threads you have only ever come across to me as a dim-witted pedestrian.
@ Villager (12h43) : not a dim-witted pedestrian at all, and what’s more his grasp on reality (not to mention grammar, syntax and orthography) is streets ahead of yours as well.
La vita è bella, life is good!
The thread of the comments from the Medialens contributors on the Marina Hyde piece.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1360393210.html
Hi Mary,
Mmm, Marina Hyde’s Guardian article seems to be winning the critical acclaim it deserves.
I found something similar giving Jemima Khan her due:
http://thing2thing.com/?p=3366
CE, 11.45am
Nice to have your response on the first half of my 11.20 am post. You’ve overlooked the second half of it, though.
Can I have your comments on the forensic report I linked to, please?
Oh Babbler, the thought just crossed my mind that you were an old-timer senile stenographer, and just then you show up as CE’s secretary!
Btw, La vita è bella = Life is Beautiful
Good = buona
And another thing:
Fred writes: “Because people don’t go delving into the depths of the BBC web site to find a story about some obscure bloke nobody ever heard of bumped off in a country most people don’t know where it is doesn’t make them biassed, quite the converse I would think.”
Babbler: “Because people don’t go delving into the depths of the BBC web site to find a story about to find a story about some obscure bloke nobody ever heard of bumped off…..doesn’t make them biassed, quite the converse I would think..”
Spot the difference.
Can someone please teach the senile Babbler how to cut ‘n paste.
:::
Babbler, did you enjoy your Belgian Woffles for breakfast. LOL
You have really turned from being our school superintendent to the resident Court Jester (and a rather poor one at that, given your obscure sense-of-humour).
Of course Life is Beautiful! Even precious and sacred! The latter too subtle for you.
But never mind Babbler, All the World’s a stage, and the world has a place for you in your second-childhood:
All the World’s a Stage monologue
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Now go along and practice typing that…grammar, syntax and orthography et al
And then into oblivion. I hope that is an elegant enough send off for you, and that my fellow cult-members like Clark, Fred, Glenn, Karel and others will agree, sans objection.
Re mine at 1.57, sorry David, i omitted to mention you. No objections, i hope. Lets conserve our energy for better motives.
This blog from last year, and especially this passage, seem more apt than eveer today.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Assange, the ‘Left’ and the Cult of Personality (*trigger warning*)
In a statement to the High Court over a year ago now, Assange lawyer Ben Emmerson did not deny the appellants’ descriptions of what Assange did to them – indeed he admitted it was “disturbing” and “disrespectful” – but merely made the case that these actions fell short of the British definitions of rape. The court – and anti-rape campaigners – rejected his plea. This – in conjunction with the feminist argument for an automatic presumption of belief in those who accuse others of rape – should really have been the end of any debate on ‘the left’.
As Zoe Stavri summarised in her brilliant takedown of George Galloway:
Assange: he’s not the messiah, he’s a rapist
“So, the first point outlines pinning a woman down in order to force her into sexual activity. The second is tricking a woman into sexual activity to which she had not consented. The third is non-consensual – albeit non-penetrative – sexual activity. The fourth is having sex with a woman who is completely unable to consent. The fifth is exactly the same as the second. You’ll notice, George, that the recurring theme throughout all of this is that the women were not consenting. There’s a word for sex without consent. Rape.”
But no, thirteen months down the line, Assange is hiding in the London Ecuadorian embassy, and his backers in what might very loosely be termed ‘the left’ are either coming out as virulent rape apologists, the most wild conspiracy theorists, or both. Galloway’s disgusting description of what he called the “sex game” is the most flagrant example, while Craig Murray was reduced to making insinuations out of a corner of his mouth on Newsnight. Other ‘celebrity left’ Assange apologists include John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Ken Loach and Michael Moore.
There are many facets to this ‘support’. For the celebrity ‘lefts’, there is likely an element of back-scratching going on, with people who have boosted each other in the past returning favours. This layer is, after all, relatively well-off and extremely well-connected. There is an opportunism to this, and a very definite lack of principles. For most other Assange defenders, there is also a type of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ anti-imperialism, combined with explicit and implicit misogyny. In some, this overlaps with a conspiracy fascination, in which cui bono rules, no evidence is ever provided, and indeed no evidence is even sought.
But in all the coverage of this case, an essential question remains unanswered: if you support the work of WikiLeaks, why defend even its figurehead from rape allegations? Is his involvement with a whistleblowing website somehow meant to give him a get out of jail free card when it comes to rape? Of course, the website as a whole should be defended from the ruling class campaign against it, because it is a genuinely progressive force. And of course, Assange is only being so vigorously pursued for rape because of his career. But that absolutely does not mean we should be in his corner as he denies his victims the justice they seek.
“In an era where mass struggle is almost entirely absent – in the UK at least – a culture has clearly developed where an individual who makes any kind of political impact is labelled as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person, depending on what they have done politically. But in the real world, people aren’t either Jesus or Satan. They take part in politics for their own ends, and they can’t be condemned for that – this being replicated on a mass scale is the only way that social change will come about. When it comes to it, Assange isn’t even on the radical left – he describes himself as a “market libertarian”. However, the greatest working class fighter in the world could still be a rapist. What matters isn’t the individuals, but the struggles they are a part of. Hero-worshipping of an individual is the antithesis of true activism, and it is poison to the urgent development of a new movement.”
Yes, very good CE
Can I have your comments on the forensic report I linked to, please?
Actually, just to add to what John Goss’s article above is pointing out. While we are all busy focusing on the latest empty-headed smear pieces in the UK press, the REAL campaign against Assange is going on behind closed doors.
Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has just visited South America (a week before the Ecuador elections) to lobby CELAC. Here’s what else is going on with CELAC:
25/1/13: REGION : Sabotaging CELAC – The US and Sweden
http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/es/node/12421
The article mentions that this destabilisation push is being organised from Chile but is aimed at the 5-nation ALBA alliance including Ecuador (the source of that CIA-backed drug running op to fund anti-Correa activities too). The article also mentions a Swedish diplomat, Cederberg, who ran the embassy in Cuba while Anna Ardin was up to her destabilisation tricks there. And – you’ll love this bit, John – Timbro, a Swedish outfit aligned to US rightwing orgs that is thought to be behind a lot of the smear campaign against Julian Assange in Sweden.
Here’s a webcache of a blogpost Anna Ardin wrote describing her deportation from Cuba (inc about her visit the embassy there – sounds cosy), which she’s since scrubbed from the net:
https://www.flashback.org/sp25035413
(use Google translate – it doesn’t muck this one up too much)
Meanwhile, Ecuador’s opposition candidate (albeit with bugger-all chance of winning) has stated publicly that, if elected, he will rescind JA’s asylum…
http://archive.is/2UYLb
Not sure whether Carl Bildt is back in Sweden already, but he’s heading to Australia next, on 27 February…
Looks like the Ecuadorian elections are bringing things to a head, just as Ricardo Patino hinted there would be “new developments in the Assange case in February or March”.
I have no idea who Zoe Stavri is but she’s clearly only read the interpretation of events of a certain Ms Marianne Ny, Head of Gotenberg’s Sex Crimes Development Unit, as they were presented on an EAW warrant instead of the actual witness statements of the women themselves, in which they make it quite clear the sex was consensual and they never said No at any point.
Perhaps Zoe Stavri is unaware that the UK courts do not test the allegations underlying an extradition warrant, or even whether there is a prima facie case to answer, they simply decide on the legal merits of extradition. CE makes this mistake too.