I am curious if you guys like DonaldTrump, or do you hate him?
That's the power of the corporate media.
In the surf this morning I was talking to a fella who said something like "Aw yeah, but Assange isn't a very nice guy."
The success of propaganda.
Saw Vice yesterday, a drama based on Dick Cheney's presidency of the US during the imbecile GWB junior's days. A hell of a humanitarian was Dick. So so reassuring we were part of the coalition of the willing.
while having no interest in debating middle east policy with proponents of the great "neoliberal conspiracy" i cant help but point out andym decrying propaganda followed by gs praising "a drama based on..." one mans propaganda is anothers....
Fair ol' stretch there LL, the point is barely taken.
its friday..one place the americans really fucked it up that gets little attention is north korea. from what i have read (see above, who knows what the truth really is) its no wonder the north koreans are a bit nuts, and there is no way they will EVER give up their nukes
Right now, I'm more interested in Julian Assange.
"Washington is trying to crush a dissident journalist for revealing its crimes. This is an attack on the world’s right to knowledge"
Oz election called & Day 1 Libs throw Assange Overboard.
Assange is Libs Caretaker Cash Cow say nothing do nothing as Votes roll in.
Like a face on election dart board...Chix hate him as do most blokes...[vote Lib]
Oz PM grinned like a winner when quizzed on TV but isn't he in Caretaker role.
Don't count your Chickens!
All believe that UK will deport Assange to OZ who pass him on to US.
It is supposed that legal clarity determines which crime justifies OZ next move.
The one thing all experts overlook is that Oz is in Caretaker mode (PM is void)
A good Lawyer will argue no Oz Govt was in place at time of Oz citizen's raid.
Which caretaker Oz Pollie knew of Raid upon OZ citizen in UK policed Embassy.
Assange can argue UK/Oz compromised his safety & Aust' Embassy is not safe.
Australian soil may need to protect Assange until Election of new Oz Govt.
US extradition requires Australia ruling...impossible until after 18/May/2019.
So just put him back where you found him until we run our Election you morons.
A commentator worth following.
An Australian citizen comments on another Australian citizen:
Interesting to see how the online so-called liberal press are reporting Julian Assange -
The Guardian - nothing, zero
ABC - total hatchet job
These outlets will report all day long on clickbait identity politics but not on anything of substance it seems.
No mention of U.S. war crimes, plenty of character assassination.
To their credit, the SMH have gone for the facts and have done a reasonably balanced piece which charts the history of Assange and Wikileaks from start to finish.
From Facto's link above -
"The precedent set by imprisoning a foreign journalist under the Espionage Act will enable the US government to arrest leak publishers anywhere in the world who expose its crimes. This will cripple our ability to hold the most powerful institution on the planet [U.S. military/political/industrial] to account in any way."
Julie Bishop wife of Oz Foreign Minister 'David' has Trump on the war path.
Oz had no US ambassador so 1st lady thinks all Oz Liberal Pollies are men.(Almost)
Bishop lets slip of Melania's cold shoulder pretty vacant ladies tea party invite. Wot!
Trump pulls his hairs out & orders smartass Austrian bitch to shut the fuck up!
"Interesting to see how the online so-called liberal press are reporting Julian Assange"
Yep, interesting indeed...
"If you’ve watched the coverage of this story today on television, you likely came away with the understanding that Julian Assange is some form of Russian spy, who is in trouble because he stole classified documents from the United States government. But that’s factually wrong. It’s not true. Saying so isn’t a defense of Assange. We’re not here to promote him, or excuse any number of things he’s said over the years that we disagree with. But just so it’s clear: Whatever his sins, Assange did not steal documents from the US government. He did not hack the DNC’s servers, or break into John Podesta’s gmail account. There is no proof he is working for the Russian government, or ever has. Assange has never been charged with any of that, and wasn’t today, no matter what they tell you.
If you’re upset about the theft of classified documents from the US government, and there’s reason to be, we already know who did it: A 22-year-old Army Private named Bradley Manning, now called Chelsea. In 2013, Manning pleaded guilty to stealing secret material, and got 35 years in prison. A few years later, Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence. This allowed Manning to leave jail decades early, go back on TV as a commentator, and run for political office. So if your real concern is America’s national security, you ought to be angry at Barack Obama. And yet, strangely, nobody is.
Instead they’re furious at Julian Assange for printing the documents that other people stole. Quote: "Julian Assange has long been a wicked tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services,” wrote professional moralizer Ben Sasse, who also serves in the US senate. “He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.”
Wicked? The rest of his life in prison? Idi Amin ate people, and never faced this kind of scorn in Washington. Not even close. Nor, for the record, was Amin ever extradited. He died at 78 in his own bed, leaving behind 43 loving children. So what’s going on here? A couple of things. First, Julian Assange embarrassed virtually everyone in power. He published documents that undermined the official story on the Iraq War and Afghanistan. He got Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired from the DNC. He humiliated Hillary Clinton, by showing that the Democratic primaries were in fact rigged. Pretty much everyone in Washington has reason to hate Julian Assange. Rather than just admit that — “he made us look like buffoons, so now we’re sending him to prison” — they’re denouncing him as, you guessed it, a Russian agent. Watch Senator Blumenthal explain:
BLUMENTHAL: Justice should come to Julian Assange for his role in Russian meddling in our election and the sooner the better.
Again, no one has ever shown that Assange is a Russian agent. The indictment against him doesn’t say it. It doesn’t mention Russia at all. But that hasn’t stopped virtually every politician in Wasington from repeating Blumenthal’s line, including many Republicans. Robert Mueller nearly killed the Russian collusion hoax. Julian Assange is allowing them to keep it alive.
You’d think journalists would say something about this. Assange is, after all, one of them. What do you call a man who publishes news for a living? Assange is no sleazier than many journalists in Washington. He’s definitely not more anti-American. He’s broken stories the New York Times would have won Pulitzers for. Yet many of his colleagues have disowned him. “Oh please,” wrote Alexia Campbell of Vox. “Assange is no journalist. We know who he works for.” Meaning Russia. “Julian Assange is not a journalist,” explained Jelani Cobb of the New Yorker, without explaining. Ken Dilanian of NBC, who doesn’t so much cover the national security state as write memos on its behalf, noted that, quote: “Many believe that if [Assange] ever was a journalist, those days ended a long time ago.” At NBC, when they tell you “many believe” something, it means they believe it. Why all the hostility? We’ll let former Democratic staffer and current CNN employee Jim Sciutto explain. Assange’s real sin was preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president:
JIM SCIUTTO: He is central to several cases. He's central to Russian interference in the election, U.S. intelligence views him as a middleman, a cutout, that he was in effect part of this interference. He's central, too, to questions about what the Trump administration, or Trump campaign, I should say, knew prior to the release of those materials, right? What were the communications between Roger Stone, et cetera… It's possible that this is something President Trump himself is not particularly excited about.
There was a time, not so long ago, when reporters didn’t applaud the arrest of other journalists for publishing information. In 1971, the Washington Post and The New York Times published a trove of stolen classified documents about the Vietnam War. It was called the Pentagon Papers. Liberals loved it. Books were written celebrating their bravery. As recently as 2011, the Wasington Post saw the connection. Quote,“A conviction [of Julian Assange] would also cause collateral damage to American media freedoms,” the Post wrote that year. Quote: “It is difficult to distinguish Assange or WikiLeaks from The Washington Post.”
That was before the Trump election and the total war that followed, a war in which the media have definitively chosen a side. Press freedom? “Sure. As long as we agree with your politics.” The first amendment? “That all depends. Who’d you vote for?” The guardians of speech are now its enemies. The people charged with policing power are now colluding with it. There’s a reason you see John Brennan on NBC all the time. They’re all on the same team. We’re not saying any of this to defend Julian Assange. We just want to be absolutely clear about who hurts this country more. It’s not him."
Yep, yep, yep, and yep
I'd put the source there, but factobum would lose his shit
This is particularly pertinent considering our current never-ending war...
"There was a time, not so long ago, when reporters didn’t applaud the arrest of other journalists for publishing information. In 1971, the Washington Post and The New York Times published a trove of stolen classified documents about the Vietnam War. It was called the Pentagon Papers. Liberals loved it. Books were written celebrating their bravery."
The nature of the U.S. corporate media landscape -
30 years ago 90% of media was held by 50 different companies, but thanks to mergers and buyouts, it’s down to 6 major companies.
As an example, one of these six companies is General Electric, which owns NBC and Comcast amongst other media outlets.
General Electric also make billions in profit selling to the U.S. military - do we really think GE are going to look favourably on Assange?
In the words of Chomsky - "What do you expect to come out as the media product of a system of major corporations selling audiences to other corporations in close interaction with a major power system, state power, that they're all very much interlocked with? That’s basically common sense."
It'd make things easier if Assange was the journalist they claim him to be. If he continued to construct content such as 'Collateral Murder' then he'd be easy to get behind, to lend your support in full. But when he decontextualises (read: dumps) terrabytes of data irrespective of the damage it'll cause - and note I'm much more concerned with innocent Afghans and Iraqis than US spies - then all he's undertaking is a Libertarian vanity project on a grand scale.
Politically, I'm on his side, but I'm not so naive to think that governments shouldn't be able to keep secrets. That's just Mark Zuckerberg saying "there's no such thing as privacy" but applied to a different setting.
For all the prolix defence of Assange I'm yet to hear one person address the 'collateral murder' he caused by making public the names of Afghan and Iraqi informants. The people who were "on the side of good" but were given Assange's kiss of death.
A journalist's view:
I'm under no illusions as to what he might be like as a person (apparent Assange quote - "'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'"
Certainly Assange hasn't done himself or his cause any favours but for me, it's about the bigger picture.
Also, the latest developments display the fact that U.S., Britain and Ecuador have conspired to punish an individual for publishing evidence of war crimes.
"David McCraw, lead lawyer of the New York Times, wrote: "I think the prosecution [of Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers... from everything I know, he's sort of in a classic publisher's position and the law would have a very hard time distinguishing between the New York Times and WilLeaks."
"In Australia, the current America-besotted government is prosecuting two whistle-blowers who revealed that Canberra's spooks bugged the cabinet meetings of the new government of East Timor for the express purpose of cheating the tiny, impoverished nation out of its proper share of the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea. Their trial will be held in secret."
He will probably be extradited to Sweden to face the rape charges as these were filed before the US charges and are part of the European justice system. This would also suit the UK as it would be less controversial than extradition to the US and might enable them to dodge responsibility if, later on, he is extradited there.
Another journalist's view:
"We're sorry, you are not allowed to proceed
Our server stopped processing your request. Your request looks suspicious or similar to automated requests from spam posting software.
If you believe you should be able to perform this request, please let us know."
Yep...just another dodgy link from factotum.
Facto's link worked for me.
The Swedish angle even smells a bit fishy.
"Even though questioning overseas in extradition cases is common – Sweden has done it dozens of times – Sweden repeatedly refused in Assange’s case, leading the Swedish appeal court to criticise the prosecutors. When he was finally questioned after four years of delays, Swedish prosecutors violated his rights by refusing access to his Swedish lawyer."
Ever wonder why highly respected journos like Jonathan Cook don't work for the big players and instead go independent?
"'Interesting that the award-winning author of this article [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-uk-spy-agencies-knew-source..., Ian Cobain, used to work at the Guardian. Why is that writers like this, who are so effective at digging up the dirt on western intelligence agencies, no longer seem to find a home at the Guardian?'"
Cook is also an award winner and found that the mainstream British press have little time for those who don't want to toe the corporate line.
"In other words, the Guardian doesn’t let its supposedly left-leaning, liberal identity distract it from supporting the corporate media consensus."
Pretty simple if a journalist is so far left leaning that they are not even wanted by the Guardian then they are absolute far left looneys.
No different to a right wing journalist that is too far right for say Sky news.
The good thing about mainstream media is left or right, they still have some quality control because they need to cater for the majority of the population who are not extreme in their views, generally speaking they are all bias to some degree (because they are human and have natural bias) and they might leave out facts they dont want to print etc and not paint the full picture, but they are not completely full of shit.
If they were going to hire/print extreme left or right views then the media outlet looses credibility with the majority of the population, because most can see they are full of shit.
An example of this is "The Daily Mail" that it's hard to believe what is true and what is not, I'm sure much of it is true, but it's obvious much is not, so it's hard to take seriously.
Im not going to give examples for the far left because you guys will just dispute it, but there is plenty of examples i could also give.
Seems like you've totally missed the point Indo - it's nothing to do with left or right, it's about media businesses having a conflict of interest and so not reporting on facts that will affect them.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Plenty of info out there Indo.
"Most media organisations are owned by multi-national multi-billion dollar corporations that are involved in a number of businesses apart from the media, such as forestry, pulp and paper mills, defence, real estate, oil wells, agriculture, steel production, railways, water and power utilities"
Fact, not negotiable.
"The boards of these media companies typically include representatives of international banks, multinational oil companies, car manufacturers and other corporations. Take for example the board of the New York Times. It includes representatives of Merck, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Charter Oil, American Express, Bethlehem Steel, IBM, Scott paper, Sun Oil, First Boston Corporation, Ford Motor Company and Manville Corporation "
Fact - not negotiable.
Other reading -
Or you can have a go at Noam Chomsky: Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (London: Pluto Press).
Or you can start with Wikipedia.
Or a dictionary.
You don't have to search too far. Look up Michael West and Fairfax. Bloke got shown the door because his work and SMH's vision "no longer aligned". He was working on corporate tax avoidance when he got the DCM, and it was also his work (and a few others) on banking malfeasance that led to the Hayne Royal Commission.
Take a look at who advertises in Fairfax to understand what triggered that redundancy.
Zero to do with left/right politics.
Now he's fortunately working independently - michaelwest.com.au - and also appointed Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Sydney's School of Social and Political Sciences to continue investigative work.
I loved Michael West's work at SMH then.......?? ........disappeared . Some good exposes of Board malfeasance and skulduggery. Good to know where he is now. Joe Aston AFR has a crack too. Gerry Harvey wanted to kill him recently as I am sure do the board of Blue Sky Investments.
Michael West's website is always worth a perusal. Got some interesting contributors as well.
In complete agreement factotum , Michael West is an investigative journalist that deserves more accolades . His website is worth subscribing to ; I recall he sold his investment unit in Bondi after his redundancy from Fairfax to set up his new venture into journalism . Great to hear he has scored a job as an Assoc Professor as he is the sort of person journalism needs at this point in time .
@Andy, Sypkan et al
If Assange-style transparency is good for democracy, then where does democracy stand against plutocracy (such as Russia) and Communism (such as China)? Note that neither Russia or China are having state secrets end up in Wikileaks' inbox.
Are their political systems strengthened at the expense of ours?
There entire system of governance is stronger than ours. But the benefits don’t outweigh the negatives of their system.
Stu I'd say that level of transparency is not only good for democracy, it's also good for not getting your country invaded and your family shot.
You've raised complex questions though which just makes me want to ask more questions such as, is China communist?
Is the Unites States a true version of democracy or is it in fact a plutocracy or an oligarchy.
I agree with Blowin, Russia and China do have "stronger" political systems if you define the lack of discussion and the ease of forcing your country in a particular direction as being strong. Having said that, the U.S. has arguably been easily forced in a certain direction as a result of the subversion of its democracy.
I guess that's the thing about democracy, in theory and I think also in practice, democracy is about listening and compromising and that takes time, especially with large populations.
I've yet to hear a desirable alternative to striving for a liberal democracy.
"Are their political systems strengthened at the expense of ours?"
No they are not, the strength of democracy / open society is occasionally we get a chance to decide what we stand for or against and this can come from occasional insights to the fu(kups we don't condone.
Russia / China style dictatorial governance reliant on continuations propergander that rots from the centre never has total moral acceptance IMHO.
I actually think that if we accept that if a stronger global projection of power reinforces a political system, then their political system may be strengthened if U.S. hegemony diminishes due to an increase in "democracy" in the U.S. demanding greater morals and ethics.
The subversion of the concept of nationhood is weakening all Western nations.
Diversity isn’t strength, diversity is division.
A lot of hope for the checking of China’s massive global influence rests on societal divisions forming due to the imbalance of CCP largesse.
But does “the checking of China’s massive global influence” necessarily have to come at the expense of western ideals of a transparent democracy?
Corruption is the single biggest blight on democracy. Transparency is the best way to root out corruption.
The US wouldn’t have control over a fraction of the territory that they do if they were transparent about their intentions
ie that it’s for the benefit of corporations.
The US has never been as powerful as immediately post WW2 . Before the military/industrial complex went full retard.
It was the corruption and corporate profit seeking at all costs - the neoliberalism - which commenced the decay of US society and enabled Chinese growth at US expense.
Andy the US has control due to its economic might and then backed up by its military–industrial complex.
Unless you take a isolationist position (risky) you fall under the control of the greater economy's.
Note Russia at the moment doesn't have the economy to back its military posture hence you don't hear to much about a Russian threat China on the other hand.........
One thing missing from outside of the western world has been the ability to innervate military weapons systems to a superior level.
Japan had a crack during WWII but lacked resources China may change that.
Blowin the US had been doing false flag actions and operations based on lies and misinformation for a long, long time before WW2.
I’m positing that if the US was transparent about its intentions, the populace wouldn’t cop it, the US wouldn’t have a fraction of the influence it does and, assuming that global influence strengthens a political system, the political system of China would be strengthened at the expense of ours.
I focus, I understand why the US has become so powerful, I’m just saying that Stu may well have a point with the question he posed.
I had a quick squiz at his website. He seems to be heavily biased against the LNP. He probably got the boot because he was perceived as being too close to Labor/Greens/ABC. Also Channel 9 owns fairfax and Peter Costello is chairman of 9. That could be a factor.
West worked first as a stockbroker, then eight years as a journalist for NewsCorp before joining Fairfax, and now he's independent. Hard to pin down his bias as he's flown all the flags.
Not hard to be critical of the LNP in their current iteration. They've been an abomination since Abbott first took the reins of opposition leader.
How do you figure that Michael West is biased?
Looks like he's happy to point the finger at Labor too ("Australian politicians and bureaucrats with links to fossil fuel & resource extraction industries"), and he even questions whether the whole Al Jazeera "expose" into One Nation was entrapment for the sake of clickbait journalism (the answer is maybe, but the idiots deserved it).
Also, if a political party like the LNP is so reprehensible that there's a mountain of evidence against it, does that mean that constant reporting of the facts amounts to bias?
Good summery on Assange
"...and he even questions whether the whole Al Jazeera "expose" into One Nation was entrapment for the sake of clickbait journalism (the answer is maybe, but the idiots deserved it)."
That's because it was entrapment...of the highest order!
I was pretty happy to see the crew on 'insiders' make the exact same point as well, after I'd questioned it on here. No offence stunet, but your defence was bullshit. Not you personally, just the bulkshit story they'd made up to justify the means to take the heat off.