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.
I don’t claim to be. I’m more of a recluse, actually, though not by choice. But I think it does help me to regard things dispassionately. I do not buy “newspapers” nor watch TV not listen to radio. I did this deliberately years ago, when I decided that they were trying to influence my opinions rather then fairly inform me.
On the Internet, I have far more control of what enters my mind; it’s up to me to click, it doesn’t just flow at me in a stream under someone else’s control. It is a lot less “pre-packaged”.
I try to work on the assumption that I’ll inevitably make assumptions, and thereby overcome them with logic and rationality.
As I have indicated to others Clark, I do find this ‘WWYD’ line to be a wee bit nonsensical. What would any alleged criminal due while on the run? Probably do everything they could to avoid custody. What Would I do? I honestly can’t say, as I strongly believe that I would never take a course of action that would leave me in such a position.
I also find the notion that JA is somehow more under threat of extradition in Sweden rather than the UK ludicrous.
I have no objection to you referencing his work or anyone else’s. That wasn’t my point. It’s the way his argument technique leads to yet further polarisation. Polarisation seems the defining characteristic of the debate about Assange; it seems to cloud a great deal of judgement.
Are you aware of other ways of considering this?
This reasoning appears to rest upon your assumption that Assange’s primary motivation is to avoid the sexual allegations.
Strip that assumption out, and what would your opinion be then?
I would argue that polarisation has been instigated and fanned by what JK likes to call ‘ the blinkered cultish devotion’ that according to her JA demands from his followers.
Of course those of us critical of JA have also been guilty of inflammatory statements and reactions, and you are right it is a defining characteristic of ‘the debate’.
Really? That seems very extreme to me. Why haven’t you criticised the Daily Mail to the same extent?
Please explain this disparity. Wikileaks has obviously angered corporate interests, and has been attacked by such (banks blocking payments, etc.). Someone like Assange is perfect canon-fodder for a deliberately inflammatory paper like the Mail.
What was your opinion about Naomi Wolf before that incident? I notice that you repeatedly mis-spell her name.
Julian Assange has demanded nothing from me. Precisely nothing. In fact, I see no demands from Assange at all. If you do, please link.
CE, I’m aware from your e-mail that you have an important prior commitment this afternoon. Please signal an adjournment in our discussion rather than dividing your attention. I do wish to follow the matters raised to some sort of conclusion, but only at an appropriate time.
Sorry, CE, I now see that I have two further e-mails from you; I was concentrating upon our discussion here. I will now read them.
James Petras is always worth reading. Here he is on the political situation in Ecuador and the upcoming elections.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/02/ecuador-left-center-political-regimes-versus-radical-social-movements/
CE, OK, I see from your second e-mail that you are now busy. I will be busy from 17:30 onwards, possibly all evening.
My summary so far: I’m sorry to say that I find your argument based upon assumptions. You seem to have established a position, and your arguments have thus become circular, i.e. self-reinforcing.
Thanks for the discussion so far. I hope that we can continue it at a time convenient to both of us.
Clark,
I would expect better of celebrated author and feminist Naomi Wolf(thanks), than I would of that vile destructive rag. Even her apology was back handed and self serving and did her no favours.
I am an admirer of her promotion of feminist causes and the deconstruction of ‘the beauty myth’ she undertook.
However, as underlined by her rabid and misguided attack, I feel she has descended into self parody and like others such as Mr Murrary in the inner circle, is ‘in too deep’ with JA to be able to form a rational unblinkered train of thought relating to his alleged crimes.
Ok Clark,
Adjournment reached. Thanks again.
Hugh match on tonight(Celtic v Juve), I will be watching in the pub. But will probably be available and probably slightly inebriated after that.
CE, thanks. Just post on this thread the time that would be convenient to you, and I’ll either confirm or deny, as appropriate within my own schedule.
Arbed, I hope that you’re now feeling reassured about my method of argument with CE.
Arbed @ 11:01
Thanks for filling in the blanks. Gorans home field advantage makes for viable suspicion. Isn’t it interesting how many persons in recent history must submit to a pristine moral litmus test in order to validate their grievances? Julian is not a Saint? Heavens to Mergatroyd ! Let’s all sing Hosannas to the pure of heart whilst the Neros set fire to our atmosphere! Really, this stuff is SOP for the control freaks.
I’m going digging into the links you gave Jemand for the duration of the morning, then we will pack for a 4-day Holiday.
Cheers !
“Was the suicide bomb in Ankara meant as a goodbye for Hillary?”
What a vile and offensive comment. You are sick and in need of help to consistently make light of things like this.
And as usual, no-one bats an eye-lid.
Attacking females, again. There is a pattern here, (doppelganger?)
Clark/Jon- Trash on aisle 6.
Arbed, 12 Feb, 11:40 am:
This reasoning seems sound, but the situation seems more complex to me.
Not necessarily; if the US doesn’t arrest her, it strengthens the pro-Assange-extradition campaign, as you just pointed out.
Consider this in the light of your final speculation:
I agree that this is a possibility. However, could it not possibly be a good thing? Consider case-by-case:
If the US don’t get hold of Assange, Birgitta Jónsdóttir would have “bought” her safety during her trip to the US for, at worst, no cost. Possibly, she could subsequently reveal the deal she made, at cost to the US.
If the US do get custody of Assange, Birgitta Jónsdóttir’s testimony could prove valuable and supportive for Assange and Wikileaks. She could also report to the public from within the proceedings.
I also wish to add a countering perspective to this:
Birgitta Jónsdóttir’s own commentary on this, from her blog:
http://joyb.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/statement-dreamworking-wikileaks.html
The same could apply to the other documentaries, but I’d have to watch them in order to form conclusions. Her stated hope may be naive, but it could be genuine.
However, the Twitter message you linked to does leave me worried that your suspicions are correct. Please can you supply a link so that I can see that message in context, i.e. what it was in reply to? I don’t really understand Twitter. I often fail to understand Tweets; it could be that they are so short, and thus terse, that I tend to misinterpret them.
– – – –
It’s a sad fact is that when a small group confronts huge corporate / governmental powers such as Wikileaks has done, even the slightest differences between individuals can be ruthlessly exploited. The power structures have ways of making people act in concert. Small groups of very different individuals have far less cohesion.
CE, 12 Feb, 4:30 pm: was that really necessary? Firstly, that comment is days or weeks old, and has already been complained about. Secondly, what is so offensive about it? It’s a question about the attacker’s motives. Maybe I’m dim, but I don’t understand your offence at this, CE. Please explain.
CE, what was the target of that bomb? Someone felt so angered by something as to sacrifice their own life. I believe that an employee was killed; I shan’t make crass, US style remarks about “collateral damage”, all such loss is a tragedy. But I doubt that the employee was the actual target.
I also don’t understand the widespread revulsion at suicide bombing. I think that what matters is what the target is. Attacks against mere civilians are atrocity, something I would truly call “terrorism”. But if an attack is clearly directed against some powerful entity, then the death of the attacker would seem to indicate true dedication to their cause.
Ben, I think that CE was on the wrong page of comments. He was on page 1, the default, and that comment happens to be near the bottom of that page.
He’s wrong that “no-one bats an eye-lid”. Habbabkuk had already had a go.
CE/Clark don’t mean to butt in, but this may be important context–12 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
And look at her body language, laugh and all. And gosh what a paunch she has acquired with her power and prosperity.
CE now tell us what is vile and disgusting….
I was impressed by your communication with Clark, but still curious as to how open-minded and objective you really are.
Yes that was mine. Guilty as charged.
Hillary connived with others in the shredding and burning of hundreds if not thousands of souls during her four years in office and I think there was a lot more to the US deaths in the Benghazi consulate than we were told having watched her give evidence to a senate hearing.
Before that bomb attack in Ankara she had had the group held responsible, outlawed as a ‘terrorist’ organisation.
Thank goodness she has gone but listening to Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, earlier today, I still feel that America will not cease from their warmongering. And there’s the risk of Clinton running for President in 2016.
Female monsters. Neither she nor Rice know the meaning of the verb ‘to nurture’.
…..or indeed Nature, my ‘God’, in the Wholeness of Life and the Universe, multi-verse if you will. Absolute infinity.
Clark, 5.10pm
To your earlier question, yes it’s fine. Knew it would be, I just wanted to clarify 🙂
About Birgitta’s trip:
“I agree that this is a possibility [that Birgitta has cut a deal to testify in the Wikileaks Grand Jury]. However, could it not possibly be a good thing?”
No, almost certainly not. Grand Juries are completely controlled by the prosecution. Witnesses are not allowed counsel in the same room. There’s no judge, just a jury who only hear what the prosecution wants them to.
“Possibly, she could subsequently reveal the deal she made, at cost to the US.”
She’d be put in jail if she tried.
“She could also report to the public from within the proceedings.”
She’d be put in jail if she tried.
With Grand Juries you cannot refuse to answer questions. If you try to plead the Fifth (against self-incrimination) you are offered immunity to compel your testimony, otherwise it’s off to jail you go. You are then held in jail until the Grand Jury is completed (this one’s been going since September 2010…). David House published what he said was his ‘testimony’ to the Grand Jury in June 2011, a long string of ‘I invoke’, ‘I invoke’, ‘I invoke’. This does not make sense – he should be in jail for that act of publication, and he isn’t. Therefore it’s assumed that his publication was not truthful and he has turned State’s witness/informant after being offered immunity. I suspect the same will happen (and possibly already has happened – see next paragraph) to Birgitta.
Please read carefully the links I put in my post to Ben (there are important links within those too) regarding the US Government going to court to hide the results of the FBI investigation into Wikileaks’ supporters (Birgitta would fit this category) from public view.
“The same could apply to the other documentaries, but I’d have to watch them in order to form conclusions.”
Yes, good idea. There’s four or five of them and, imv, her contributions to them are pretty bad. I see that Jemand (12.44pm) got the same impression from at least one of these documentaries.
Clark, 5.10pm
I meant please read the links in my post to Jemand, not Ben. Sorry.
Update: I’ve just seen this tweet from Wikileaks about Birgitta’s trip:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/301406439807787008
THAT is a politely coded but very strong signal to the world that no, she hasn’t, and that yes, it is an extremely dangerous move for them (but not necessarily her – if she’s already done a deal). For me, it also answers the open question in the first paragraph of my post to Jemand at 11.40am:
Clearly, they didn’t.
Sorry Clark, I’ve just realised you’d already pointed out that you’re not that familiar with Twitter, so I had better spell out what I mean by my previous post.
It’s an alert to the world because if Birgitta was back on board with Wikileaks they would be communicating with her internally, not on a public medium such as Twitter. Or they could tweet her and ask her to follow them back then send this message to her as a private DM (directmessage) via Twitter. But no, they’ve chosen to go fully public.
And it’s code because they will already know to whom their own lawyers (and Manning’s lawyers too, I suspect) have spoken.