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’s the 64,000 rouble question isn’t it. If the evidence against JA is so flimsy and inadequate why did JA avoid his Swedish lawyer and proceed to skip bail, and then hide out in the EA after exhausting all of his legal avenues?
My guess would be, he realised a court of law may not look too favourably on his behaviour and he was at risk of becoming at best a convicted sex offender. So he took a calculated risk to preserve himself and Brand JA, run like fuck and unleash the followers to smear any and everyone who spoke out against his fanciful narrative.
Or, he finally realized it was a sting operation, and the entrapment revealed the agenda.
Thanks CE. But you beat me by 1 in the grammar test – I missed pride being collective as well as abstract. Mixed up except and accept on an earlier posting as well! And my typing is rubbish, I wish I had been taught in school.
Now for a nice glass of Rioja and the Spiral!
Or, he finally realized it was a sting operation, and the entrapment revealed the agenda.
😆 Comedy gold.
This could qualify for the Onion…
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/02/us-cancels-regular-drone-strikes-on-saturdays.html?currentPage=all
54 countries cooperated with CIA in their rendition program. (including Sweden)
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/globalizing-torture-20120205.pdf
Resident Dissident
9 Feb, 2013 – 8:43 pm
“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”
What you describe,in common parlance, is called bipolar disorder. Btw what is “social reaction”, pray?
Btw resdiss response outstanding to:
“Villager
8 Feb, 2013 – 11:57 pm
Res Diss: “But it is true that Assange’s paymasters ….”
I note while you have, for now, stopped using the word ‘cult’, it is now Assange’s paymasters. Does your country do trade with Russia?”
:::
And yes, i’m glad you’ve been thinking of me. Good sign that i’m getting under your skin. Your intellectually dishonest brain too, perhaps? Can i please have your “social reaction”?
Resdiss: “Thanks CE. But you beat me by 1 in the grammar test – I missed pride being collective as well as abstract. Mixed up except and accept on an earlier posting as well! And my typing is rubbish, I wish I had been taught in school.”
Go back and read the thread. Its not just your typing that is rubbish. I wish you had also been taught comprehension at school.
Anger and mellowness in the same day equals bipolar disorder – you do say the sweetest things.
Sweet dreams dearest – more football tomorrow.
Social interaction – my latest spoonerism, in case you couldn’t work it out. Highly recommended.
From CE
From resident dissident:
Approval from CE:
But then:
Sorry CE, this seems hypocritical to me. Your desire to avoid “trial by media” only applies in one direction.
CE, if AA tampered with evidence, and SW didn’t want Assange charged and felt “railroaded” by police, who exactly does this case serve? You, perhaps? You’ve already demonstrated to my satisfaction that you don’t care about SW or female rape campaigners in general.
resdiss,
The thick plottens. But since what i see are two short planks, perhaps you have lost the plot. Get a grip on yourself ol’ boy. Okay so Assange is one step ahead of you but please its not a pretty sight to see you fall to pieces in a public forum. Can you do this in private? Why don’t you go while the going is good?
Hi Clark, apologies for typos, just back from a few drams with friends.
Please do not try to make this about me. I am not the one who skipped bail and who is holed up in an embassy to avoid facing a rape charge. I have asked you once, and I will ask you again, please stop attempting these childish smears about my concerns about rape. It doesn’t seem to bother you when other contributors make sick jokes concerning rape and consent. Or is that not noteworthy? I realise it is difficult for those like yourself who are invested in brand JA, but you are not worthy of this approach.
You fall into the same trap as arbed by claiming to know what SW wants. I do not want any individual to be ‘served’ as you put it, what I would like to see is justice and due process being observed, which is more than I can say for most of the contributors to this blog. Most followers couldn’t give two hoots about AA or SW, they just want them shoved aside so the messiah can resume his rightful place, if that means becoming a pseudo rape apologist then so be it.
And as I have said on here, many, many, times an internet blog is not the ideal forum to determine an individuals guilt, a court of law is.
PS for Charley boy : you posted something about pissing through a neighbour’s hedge an hour or so ago. Just wanted to be helpful and advise you to get your pecker back into your budgie smuggler sharpish, it’s around 0° outside and you wouldn’t want it to get frostbite, would you.
Nighty night!
Guy Rundle on Khan …
Posted by David macilwain on February 10, 2013, 7:28 am
In a scathing essay around Jemima Khan’s cold feet over JA, Rundle takes advantage to present a position on some other worthy institutions. Available on Crikey, but you need to register, so I’ll copy the article here.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1360481333.html
[..]Why was this senior “special investigations reporter” sent to cover a video appearance by a Guardian nemesis in snowy Oxford? Pure coincidence, doubtless, doubtless. The former ambassador and later whistleblower Craig Murray posted a video of the event to show the absurdity of Hill’s characterisation. It’s hard not to conclude The Guardian simply goes a little bit crazy whenever the topic of Assange reappears on the horizon.
It is all set to get worse this year, as the Swedes renew their insistence
on Assange being extradited, and the Brits increase their pressure on
Ecuador — which is heading towards elections on February 17 with a run-off
in April. Rafael Correa, Assange’s protector, is overwhelmingly likely to
win, leaving Sweden with the next move.
Unless Assange, through biohacking, grows to eighty metres tall, smashes
black helicopters in his hands and walks to Quito. Three years on this
beat, and nothing will surprise me …
An interesting read of Christopher Dorner’s “manifesto”. Does anyone have a link to an unredacted copy? The shame is that this man, with others, will die and the injustices he revealed will never be investigated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-manifesto-ramblings_n_2639141.html
CE, I complained about your apparent hypocrisy; are you yourself unaware of it? You repeatedly make claims that sound noble and unbiased, such as:
But you constantly prejudice due process with statements that presume guilt, for instance:
and many others. I asked about your personal motivation because your apparent hypocrisy has become difficult for me to ignore.
CE, I do not claim to know what SW wants, merely what she did and said. From the record of her interview by Irmeli Krans:
And from the statement of “Witness I” (see final paragraph):
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,03.shtml
CE, what if the case against Assange is not what SW wants? And do you agree that such a possibility exists?
Blogger Simon Wood published an analysis of The Guardian’s continued attack and smear articles against Julian Assange.
The 99.99998271%
Direct Democracy and Human Rights
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2013
Pravda UK: Guardian’s Assange Coverage Descends Into Farce
“News is something someone doesn’t want printed. All else is advertizing.” – William Randolph Hearst
Those following the saga of Julian Assange, the founder (also editor-in-chief) of the transparency organization Wikileaks will be well aware of the long-running feud with the UK’s Guardian newspaper. Initially partners in the explosive release of US diplomatic cables in 2010, the two suffered a very public falling-out. The period since then has been characterized by smear after hit piece after smear, and given that The Guardian’s website is one of the most visited news sites in the world with millions of unique visitors every day, any misleading or negative article on Mr. Assange or his organization is certain to adversely influence public opinion on an enormous scale.
The smear is the standard response of establishment figures and entities to anyone who seriously challenges or stands outside the sphere of mainstream media orthodoxy, and it is nothing new. It serves both as a means of distracting from the points made by the target of the smear and of simultaneously skewing public perceptions against the ‘outsider’ and reinforcing those for the establishment. It does not require a conspiracy to effect, simply a self-reinforcing media culture in which mutual praise and backslapping with unwritten laws regarding treatment of certain public figures (including other journalists), leading to descriptions of controversial establishment politicians like Tony Blair with ‘nuanced’ language while high-profile opponents of mainstream Western ideology like Hugo Chavez are labeled ‘firebrands’, ‘dictators’ and ‘self-styled’ ‘revolutionaries’.
Please read on….
http://99998271.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/pravda-uk-guardians-assange-coverage.html
(A bit long, but very enlightening–well worth the read especially on this grey sunday afternoon.)
IMPORTANT CREDIT: I was lead to the above blog by this very worthy website:
Well worth keeping on your radar.
“The 99.99998271%” also caught my eye since the 99% club here has recently been bandying it about here.
The Road Not Taken
BY ROBERT FROST
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Sorry here’s the link
http://www.thisdayinwikileaks.org
CE, 12.56am
“Most followers couldn’t give two hoots about AA or SW, they just want them shoved aside so the messiah can resume his rightful place, if that means becoming a pseudo rape apologist then so be it.”
No, as a female victim of rape myself, I just want to see women who make false allegations about rape charged with that crime. If they are not, it does genuine victims a great disservice.
“What I would like to see is justice and due process being observed”
Do the police have any role in due process? You haven’t answered my question about this yet… er, possibly not previously addressed directly to you, so, well, it is now:
It is not a routine part of due process – here in the UK at least – that rape investigations which the police discover are based on allegations + tampered with evidence would be stopped in their tracks before they do any more damage to their intended target, and investigated in the reverse direction?
Is it not a routine part…
Bah!
Smoking gun emails just leaked in Sweden:
http://rixstep.com/1/20130210,00.shtml
Rixstep helpfully puts the all-important bits in bold, so no one can miss it. And dates, just so everyone’s clear on the order of events.
Those naughty moderators at the Guardian are at it again, censoring comments in their CIF section with no rhyme nor reason (especially not the reasons given in their Community Rules). Someone cleverly managed to get Before and After twitpics to illustrate the point:
http://twitpic.com/c2hh6d
http://twitpic.com/c2hi4y
I wonder if it was the question “whether members of the Guardian’s staff are currently under direct threat of prosecution by the United States Justice Department re. the espionage act” that needed to be culled?
CIF = Comment Is Filtered.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
http://haitianalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/wikileaked-cables-raise-question-did-us.html
WikiLeaked Cables Raise Question: Did the U.S. Green-Light Duvalier’s Return in 2011?
Arbed, thanks for the Rixstep link.
Thanks to Stjärna Frånfälle for her efforts with The Guardian.
Resident Dissident, I’m scared. This sort of thing isn’t supposed to happen in my country.
Arbed; I feel someone must respond to Arbed’s personal experience, which would challenge even the strongest amongst us. I am both anguished and admiring of you Arbed. Too many times rape is used as a cudgel or gambit, at the expense of countless who must endure the event itself, then the aftermath. Your courage and integrity should be lauded by all within earshot of your revelation. My spouse agrees. 🙂
News from Scotland Against Criminalising Communities – SACC (www.sacc.org.uk)
Richard Haley
February 9 2013
Julian Assange – Julian Assange – speaking truth to the powerless
Last August, a FOI request to the Australian Government confirmed that a US investigation into possible “crimes” by Julian Assange is underway. Australian diplomats appear to be treating the empanelling of a US federal grand jury as an understood fact, though US officials can’t confirm this to them without breaking US law. There are unconfirmed rumours that a sealed grand jury indictment is already in existence.
Ever since then, commentators have been falling over themselves to say that Assange’s fears of extradition to the US are a sham, that he is phobic about it, that no one who’s anybody likes him any more, and that you shouldn’t like him either. Last week Jemima Khan published an article in the New Statesman, retracting her previous support for Assange. The article has almost nothing to say, except that Khan is piqued that Assange withdrew his support for a film for which she was Executive Producer – a film that had taken a form he couldn’t possibly endorse. It was called “Wikileaks : We Steal Secrets.” It might as well have been called “Julian Assange: I confess – jail me.”
The New Statesman’s leader column added its support to Jemima Khan’s position. Then the Guardian reprinted Khan’s almost content-free article on Saturday, and Guardian columnist Marian Hyde added a completely, miraculously content-free article of her own.
Sweden is one of just two counties in western Europe from whose home soil people have been abducted for rendition to torture by the US. Its co-star in the hall of shame, Italy, has gone a long way towards putting these events behind it by convicting US and Italian officials for their part in the affair. Sweden has done nothing of that kind. But the media trendies insist that Assange has nothing to fear from Sweden and should take himself off there.
/…
http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=931&catid=56
Thank you, Ben. It was a long time ago. The police were lovely, they believed me and arrested the men but, as is common, I had acted irrationally in the aftermath – took three weeks to report it, threw a letter apologising and admitting what had happened back in someone’s face out of rage (thereby destroying evidence… dumb, huh?) – so the CPS decided not to proceed to court. I raged about that too at the time, but came eventually to understand the reasons for their decision – rape is a crime that doesn’t fit comfortably into many of our most basic legal concepts: the need for witnesses or corroborating evidence; the reliance on vigorous cross-examination; how to demonstrate mens rea in word-against-word, etc. And I eventually understood why the CPS will pursue only those cases with a reasonably high chance of conviction, as acquital after acquital if they attempt to prosecute all cases, including ‘weak’ ones, will only put off other women coming forward in the first place. That larger social good is also part of a prosecutor’s calculations, I’m afraid.
Still, my own experience led me to do more formal academic study of how rape is prosecuted a few years later. It also, of course, led me to take a keen interest when the Assange investigation first happened back in 2010. The instant global publicity of the ‘manhunt’, then the dropping of the case the next day, then picked up again a few days later, the Interpol notice, the EAW, the storming of an embassy over the non-use of condoms… Those things just do not happen in normal rape investigations. Trust me on this, I know.