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.
That is so passé. This a little more today:
Held in a gilded cage, optimism still reigns supreme for Assange
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/held-in-a-gilded-cage-optimism-still-reigns-supreme-for-assange-20130206-2dykj.html#ixzz2KP8rHVEh
I don’t believe I’ve peed in earshot of a London bobby before. When after my chat with Julian Assange last week I asked for the loo, a sign on the toilet door warned of surveillance. Being watched is now so standard in London that it registered as no more sinister than having strayed onto the set of Spooks, until a pale glow outside the window brought it home.
A copper was there, glued-in 24/7, and he was on his iPad in the cold London night. I, centimetres away, was in Ecuador. This of course is the point. Inside the Ecuador embassy, a few steps from Harrods’ high-lumen temple to consumerism, Assange pads safely around in socks. He has food, an exercise machine and optical broadband. But should he step through the mirror, even into the building’s joyless foyer, he’s toast.
It’s any old evening in Knightsbridge, yet from the street I count five police, plus the toilet sentry, who must be wedged like a whelk into one of the building’s terracotta crannies.
There’s also a van the size of a Hollywood trailer and for a moment I expect Benedict Cumberbatch to emerge, a white-haired pseudo-Australian. But no. It, too, is police.
Advertisement
When the foyer constable asks my name I give it without thinking. Later, leaving, I ask why. He explains that they have to keep tabs, just in case ”he” escapes.
But escape is the last thing on the prisoner’s mind. Speaking to Assange makes it immediately clear that he’s fine with the situation; unbothered by when, how and whether he might resume a normal, en plein air kind of life. Indeed, he seems to think it an odd question.
There are many possible explanations for this unconcern, including the commonly held view that Assange is a narcissist, in it for the limelight. Narcissism is not a crime, or most celebs and half our pollies would be in jail. But still, after some 90 minutes’ conversation, this is not the explanation that recommends itself.
Assange seems wholly cause-driven. And that’s where optimism reigns. Asked about his personal future, Assange says: ”It’s going great. Everything is developing. We made a promise and we were completely victorious. We’re winning.” Not a first-person singular in sight.
Asked about his personal present, he notes that he’s safe, warm, fed, connected and able to work, in ascending order of importance.
Last Sunday, Assange was awarded the Yoko Ono Courage Award (usually given to artists). Credit sanctions have folded, so WikiLeaks’s kitty is once again building, and he expects the Swedish case against him will ”drop”. The day we speak, the day of the federal election announcement, Assange quietly confirms that, yes, he will run for the Senate. From outside, to the world, Assange looks stuck. Abandoned by his own government, imprisoned in a small outpost of a regime known for its press intolerance, actively threatened by America and Britain and routinely vilified in Sweden, Assange seems to have dwindling public support, as vilification campaigns start to bite.
Even around London, it’s amazing how many people come out with one or all of the following. Count one, didn’t publishing all those names get a whole lot of people killed? Two, why doesn’t he just go to Sweden and face the music? And three, ”oh well, he seems like a bit of a wanker anyway” – as though that justified imprisonment without trial or even a grand jury.
I put these to the man at the centre of the storm.
On count one, Assange notes that ”not even the most rabid or hawkish general in the Pentagon has produced evidence or even claimed that we have led to the death or harming of any person – and if we had, they most certainly would”.
As to ”facing the music”, everything hinges on the genuineness of the case and the probability of a fair trial.
Here, it’s critical how far the two simultaneous cases – of ”rape” in Sweden and of illegal publishing in the US – are in fact separate. If the ”rape” case is genuine, the Swedish government should have no problem (a) sending the prosecutor to interview Assange in London, as repeatedly invited, (b) if necessary, charging him here and (c) guaranteeing against his extradition to the United States.
The Australian government should be strenuously advocating to this end. In fact, both governments have not only refused such guarantees but have actively maligned Assange in a way that diminishes his chance of fair trial in either country. The Swedish prosecutor has said Assange will be seized and imprisoned – potentially in solitary, incommunicado and indefinitely – the minute he sets foot there.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has never retracted her public (mis)statement that Assange had committed ”an illegal act”. The Swedish Prime Minister, Frederik Reinfeldt, has never retracted his public mis-statement that Assange had been charged with rape. Why not?
Assange points out that Sweden’s is a culture of profound conformism; a population half the size of Australia’s with a language spoken (and a culture therefore scrutinised) by no one else on earth. A country that, unlike say Germany, ”never denazified” after World War II. Never pushed the reset button.
So when the Social Minister, Goran Hagglund, publicly describes Assange as ”sick … a coward … a lowlife … a pitiful wretch”, and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs tweets ”you do not dictate the terms if you are a suspect. Get it?”, the press follow suit.
Sweden’s largest-circulation daily, Dagens Nyheter, calls Assange ”paranoid” and a ”querulant”.
A prominent journalist for the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, Martin Aagard, calls him an ”Australian pig”, linking Assange with Rupert Murdoch. ”There are many good reasons to criticise Assange. One … is that he’s a repugnant swine.”
Is this the temperate response of a modern democracy to untested allegations of sex-without-a-condom? Can we seriously trust that the two cases are discrete?
The Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, for years a grand jury denier, admitted recently that ”it appears … a grand jury has been established” in Richmond, Virginia, to try Assange in secret.
What sort of government would not strenuously resist this for a citizen innocent under Australian law?
As to the third conception, of Assange-as-wanker, I say only this. I expected to find him self-absorbed, humourless and rather vain. Instead he was warm, engaging, unpretentious, intelligent and frank. It’s not relevant, but I liked him.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/held-in-a-gilded-cage-optimism-still-reigns-supreme-for-assange-20130206-2dykj.html#ixzz2KPhPX4Ti
” in which they make it quite clear the sex was consensual and they never said No at any point. ”
Blatant lies from Arbed there. Is there no depths which the followers won’t plunge to?
Just out of interest, how exactly is a sleeping rape victim expected to say no? Laughable.
By saying ouch!
No worries, Arbed. Correa is polling 66%. Guitierez is bringing up the rear-guard of the pathetic opposition, and must say ridiculous things to get his name published.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130207/ecuadors-correa-has-large-lead-presidential-race-polls
“Is there no depths which the followers won’t plunge to?”
Yes, rape.
I suppose that is meant to be funny.
Absolutely disgusting.
I’m sure our concern-trolling friends are equally outraged at the rape of Iraq at the hands of the Bilderberg/Fabian Globalists.
Some swedes in there too. I feel sure the sexual proclivities of all participants and members have sexual mores as white and pure as the driven snow, because they would surely suffer under the lash of our trolls, were that not the case. Consistency is a measure of the meme.
“There are many possible explanations for this unconcern, including the commonly held view that Assange is a narcissist, in it for the limelight. Narcissism is not a crime, or most celebs and half our pollies would be in jail. But still, after some 90 minutes’ conversation, this is not the explanation that recommends itself.
Assange seems wholly cause-driven. And that’s where optimism reigns. Asked about his personal future, Assange says: ”It’s going great. Everything is developing. We made a promise and we were completely victorious. We’re winning.” Not a first-person singular in sight.”
Nice prosaic mosaic. She reminds me of Hunter, or Matt Taibbi, Villager.
Yes…..his narcissism. That’s SOP for authoritarians seeking to tamp down a discouraging word, along with charges of sexual misconduct. It’s just more projection from those most venally corrupt and without moral compass..
A must-read review by Gary Corseri of William Blum’s new book AMERICA’S DEADLIEST EXPORT: DEMOCRACY
Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is “corruscating, eye-opening, and essential.” Oliver Stone calls it a “fireball of terse information.”
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable “truths” one has taken for granted — often since childhood — are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and dis-informed.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/02/william-blums-cri-de-couer/
Y’all might think I’m violating my rule on trolls. However, you’ll notice I address their foolishness without addressing them, directly. Trust me. It drives them barmy.
3.56pm correction
Is there no depths which the followers won’t plunge to?
s/be
Are there no depths to which the followers won’t plunge?
Mary; Stone’s new book ‘The Untold history…….” is quite good as well. But Democracy is not on trial.
It’s more like the pedophile priests who abscond with the philosophy of Jesus. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Mary; Are you the only contributor who doesn’t take a Siesta, or is it ‘Tea’? This place evacuates every late afternoon.
CE: “Is there no depths which the followers won’t plunge to?”
V: Yes, rape.
CE: I suppose that is meant to be funny. Absolutely disgusting.
V: So you are disgusted that we Assange’s supporters won’t “plunge to” rape, just like he, Julian Assange, did not plinge to rape? You sound disappointed.
CE, sure you’re not just an illiterate dolt of a pedestrian but actually the proverbial heel?
Thank you for that correction which i too spotted. (Proves the dolt theory). CE can be forgiven for his secretary who showered praise on his grammar etc is away.
Your previous offensive comment you buffoon.
I will no longer converse with people who find rape a laughing matter. Goodbye.
Previous to what you nitwit–point out what you found disgusting. Or stick to your Goodbye, thats even better. This is not a site to teach you simple comprehension and/or grammar. Ciao ciao
Ben Franklin. It’s 5.15 pm here. The weather is foul and very cold and damp with snow predicted for tomorrow although it has been sleeting today. I have cleaned out the hens and got some logs in and now will wash my hair and go out tonight to a concert. I have just had a hot cup of tea and some biscuits. The theme of the concert is the writing of Jane Austen and Fanny Burney who lived locally, with music from the period. I hope it is not all too pretentious but the playing of the orchestra is usually very good. See you.
I hope you are not on the NE coast in the snow drifts.
I’m in a mountain region of California, and we got a 4 inch blanket of snow last night.
Sounds like you are escaping your own cold weather for some warm culture. Enjoy it Mary.
Grammar quiz….beware of the term ‘collective’
I missed 5 of 14. Alas, I must turn-in my grammarian license.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/quiz/2013/feb/04/grammar-punctuation-quiz-test
Take consolation Ben, i missed 6 despite having to look up the rather alien word ‘gerund’. If this is how english is taught at school–mechanically–little wonder standards are falling. Did you pick up the ‘woffly’ one earlier though?
Thanks for the quiz anyway and stay warm.
Btw some of your earlier comments reminded me of Leonard Cohen’s song, Democracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JwmIBSMzSM
Anyway, i like Einsteins definition to the effect that education is what is left when you have forgotten everything you learnt at school.
Guess who got 14? (Surprisingly)
CE
Can I have your comments on the forensic report I linked to, please?
Arbed,
Again this is tired old ground,
But I believe that AA has most likely tampered with evidence, I also believe it most likely that JA raped SW. But thankfully these matters are not for us to decide but a Swedish court of Law.
“guess who got 14” Did you cheat 🙂
Arbed
I have seen details in respect of the condom many times – it is nothing new and the cult has been using every opprortunity to make it public.
As I have said many times the internet is not the place to examine evidence in a case and then form views as to innocence or guilt. I think you should consider a few questions:
1. Is this the only piece of evidence on which the case is based? The answer is almost certainly no.
2. Have you seen all the evidence that is relevant to the case? The answer to this should be no, especially in respect of a court case, unless you or someone else has ated unethically to make the evidence available,
3. Are you aware that legal cases are very often decided on more than a single piece of evidence and it is usually the case that evidence presented can point in different directions even though it is possible to reach a final verdict on the balance of the evidence.
Don’t you think it right that those representing both the accused and defendant should be given the opportunity to question the evidence – especially since they have the appropriate skills (or access to them) and are trained to do so.
The fact that you continually believe that your partisan approach to evidence (also evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him) is sufficient to decide whether or someone has a case to answer really just demonstrates your contempt for how proper legal processes should operate. Of course the corollary of this is that many supporters of the Assange, as often demonstreated by those here, are often only too prepared to proclaim someone’s guilt on the basis of similar techniques. There are good reasons why decent legal systems have such basic processes – and should not be replaced by the summary justice you suggest.
If the evidence is entirely as you suggest I have little doubt that Assange would be found innocent in a Swedish court – and if the case is as flimsy and one sided then undoubtedly those who initiated the case would have some very difficult questions to answer. But as I have said before these things have to go through proper legal process in a civilised country rather than being judged on the internet. So please do not ask me to comment on detailed evidence again.
The whole issue of extradition to the US really is something of a red herring – since it is very difficult to see how the position differs between the UK and Sweden, and we don’t even know the basis on which the US might wish to extradite. And I’m afraid that is a view that is shared by many of Assange’s former friends, despite the habitual character assassination that is doled out to them by cult members (which again demonstreates their utter contempt for anything remotely akin to justice). Just look at the insults heaped on poor JK’s head – eventhough her NS article (and also the NS editorial (with which I agreed practically word for word) continued to be very supportive of many of Assanges’s and Wikipedia’s activities and objectives).
Resident Dissident,
Great post, thank you. I wish I could be so articulate in laying out the utter hypocrisy and idiocy of JA and his disciples.
Keep up the good work.
Villager
While my initial response to your comments, general offensiveness and hypocrisy was one of anger you will be pleased to know that a day out with my children in the fresh (but rather cold and dizzly) air has mellowed me, so that my reaction is now one of pity for someone who is clearly in need of friendship and social reaction. Hugs and kisses
Trolls demand responses….alas, they eschew answering questions which are inconvenient.
If only Al Awlaki could have surrendered to the US Embassy in Yemen. Undoubtedly he would be alive and free to pursue his life without concern.