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 everyone, for your support and kindness.
Jemand, 7.28am
Quite. I think what infuriated me more than anything was to be accused of whatabouttery by someone who had completely ignored the substantiative arguments I was making – via my own personal history and knowledge on the matter – about prosecutorial decision-making in normal rape investigations vis a vis the ‘strength’ of a case, ie the likelihood of obtaining a conviction – and how that reflected on the Swedish prosecutor’s decision-making in the Assange investigation, which the vast majority of Swedish jurists who know the case have stated is the weakest they have ever seen.
Instead, CE chose to focus solely – in a supreme piece of whatabouttery – on an argument I did not make at all: the issue of the ‘Red’ level of the Interpol notice.
I am aware of the controversy surrounding this “red level” issue (not that I feel Goran Rudling’s statistics are necessarily to be trusted – he is a notoriously unreliable narrator) so I avoid that particular point. If CE in his zeal had stopped for one minute to actually consider what I had written he’d have seen that I was only linking to a well-researched article about the disquiet within Interpol itself that an Interpol notice had been used at all in Assange’s case. There was never any difficulty in locating him – he had instructed his lawyers to contact the Met as soon as he arrived in the UK to let them know he would be available if required – and the departures from normal Interpol procedures in the way in which it had been used.
Whatabouttery indeed. Infuriating.
“what infuriated me more than anything was to be accused of whatabouttery by someone who had completely ignored the substantiative arguments I was making” +
“Instead, CE chose to focus solely – in a supreme piece of whatabouttery – on an argument I did not make at all”
Standard troll tactic, Resident Hypocrite Dissident did the same, making a big song & dance smokescreen about Russian Gulags; these people are totally shameless, and so totally transparent.
@Arbed
While the Red Notice was technically valid, despite its issuance for dubious reasons, it demonstrated an aggressive determination to utilise every legal resource in bringing Assange to heel and dramatically smear him with implied wrongdoing. When we compare the nature of the allegations against him with those levelled at others who are listed under the same Red Notice, we can see very clearly that the efforts to pursue him are motivated by a political agenda.
Arbed,
Again I apologise for any upset, but,
If you do not want to engage with me please to do not misrepresent my views or state things which are false concerning me or I will feel compelled to defend myself.
‘Instead, CE chose to focus solely – in a supreme piece of whatabouttery – on an argument I did not make at all’
1) I did not foucs ‘solely’ on Red Notices. I listed 3 glaring inaccuracies in one paragraph of your post to highlight the extremely loose relationship with the truth you have when defending JA.
2) you claim you did not make this argument, was someone else posting under your name then?
“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. ”
Things would have been simpler if you could just have followed Jemand’s line and admit the Red Notice Myths were exactly that.
CE, I’ve been watching to see if you would return.
Why are you so concerned about Assange?
Clark,
I have apologised for my somewhat frustrated tone last night. I am only defending myself now against inaccuracy, that is all.
I despise hypocrisy and misogyny and also think JA is a dangerous snake-oil salesman and it disturbs me to see so many people on the Left rush to blindly defend him and throw 50 years of progressive politics at the altar of knee-jerk anti-american sentiment.
Does everyone who comments have to explain their interest in the matter?
I also see no correlation between my previous comments(one of which was a quote from someone else) and this ‘women-user’ label you seem determined to label me with. Namoi Woolf is a Woman. She was talking shite about JA and his alleged victims. I said so. Therefore I use women. Somewhat tortured logic.
Do you have time now to discuss this matter? I can spare an hour or so at present. I’m interested in your motivation.
CE, are you busy doing something else at the same time? Would you suggest a time that you could give this your full attention, so that we can have a proper conversation?
Clark,
Not sure if that is a good idea given the way I rub some people the wrong way on here. Feel free to send me an email if this would be preferable to you and others.
I’m working, but will attempt to answer any questions asap, but, no, sorry one hour is probably not a reasonably realistic time-frame.
CE, I have no contact details for you, whereas I publish mine via the link on my name, so it’ll have to be you that contacts me. I’d welcome that, but, I’d prefer our conversation to be here, in public. So just suggest some time when you won’t be splitting your attention too much, and I’ll tell you if that’s convenient for me, too.
@CE
Your stated motives are unconvincing. Why are you apparently so disinterested in the glaringly obvious stance of both UK and Swedish authorities who appear to be protracting this matter rather than discreetly resolving it with a low-key visit to the Ecuadoran Embassy to ascertain Assange’s account of the allegations? I would have thought that after an interrogation, the Swedish authorities would either issue a statement that they have decided to drop the matter or intend to formally charge Assange when they are able to. At this stage, the extraordinary cost of this Ecuadorean stand-off and protraction of a **comparitatively** minor criminal matter does not present itself as the noble conflict of principles that you and your friends imply.
Clark,
Sorry, it’s there now I think. Feel free if you wish and of course to reproduce any correspondence if you see fit.
Sorry to be so vague, but I do not have a great deal of ‘free time’, but I will be taking a 1hr bus journey tomorrow afternoon if that is helpful.
CE, Yes, I can spare an hour tomorrow afternoon. From when until when? If you’re not yet sure, just keep me updated by commenting here.
Nothing from you in my GMX Inbox so far…
Will do.
CE, thanks.
Expanding now into Australia?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/11/guardian-australia-hires
Their benefactor
‘Wood, the multi-millionaire who made his fortune founding travel accommodation service Wotif.com, is the founding investor in Guardian Australia, but will not hold shares or be a member of the board. The scale of his investment in Guardian Australia, which will launch in the coming months, was not revealed.
“I’m delighted to support the Guardian’s expansion in Australia,” said Wood, who is reportedly worth almost A$350m (£230m). “It will add quality and diversity to our media as well as fostering a closer interaction between Australians and the rest of the world.”
Unlike his involvement with non-profit, public interest digital news venture Global Mail – which he chairs and has pledged to back with A$15m to A$20m over five years – Wood is understood to have invested in Guardian Australia with a view to generating a commercial return from launch.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/15/guardian-launch-digital-australia-edition?INTCMP=SRCH
The product
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/australia
Seems to be all about doping in sport. The Assange links are all of the previous muck.
“I’m delighted to support the Guardian’s expansion in Australia,” said Wood, who is reportedly worth almost A$350m (£230m). “It will add quality and diversity to our media as well as fostering a closer interaction between Australians and the rest of the world.”
Closer interaction? Bullshit. While “Comment Is Filtered” is.. ermm.. filtered, there is no interaction of worth.
“Why are you apparently so disinterested in the glaringly obvious stance of both UK and Swedish authorities who appear to be protracting this matter rather than discreetly resolving it with a low-key visit to the Ecuadoran Embassy to ascertain Assange’s account of the allegations?”
Julian had a chance to put his side of the story but chose to run away and hide instead. It’s got to the point now where nobody wants to budge for fear of losing face. The Swedes aren’t going to move for fear of looking soft, the UK isn’t going to risk international humiliation by letting Assange slip away and the Ecuadorean embassy staff won’t risk an diplomatic incident by trying to smuggle him out. Question is what is Julian Assange going to do. He can’t remain in the embassy for the rest of his life but unless he decides to give himself up he’s going nowhere.
“It’s got to the point now where nobody wants to budge for fear of losing face. ”
That might be the case with the UK or Sweden, although political scheming generally trumps emotional reluctance with nation states, but it is most certainly not the case with Assange. One part of the equation that has never been discussed, despite my attempts to encourage it, is what if Assange exercises his right to silence without prejudice as we understand it in the English speaking world? Can he be convicted on the unchallenged, albeit denied, allegations of a complainant? If the answer to that question is ‘no’ then what purpose does this very expensive stand-off serve?
Dumbing down on the verbose minutiae of the ‘case’ simply gives breathing room to those who wish to discredit the over-arching importance of Wikileaks. If they had no public face to demean and punch with their hamster hands, they would be forced to discuss the Big Picture, and they don’t want to go there. The cover story seems to be; their concern for women, but they spill their candy in the lobby when they harass the females here with their claw-like fumbling. It’s all a charade promulgated by neocons and wannabees. Experts at carnival barking, they seek to seduce with compelling scatatology, as the smell arising seems to require our attention. If you must scooo the poop, take it outside as soon as it appears, please.
‘scoop’ the poop.
Kempe, 11 Feb, 3:47 pm
That’s wrong in a number of ways. He avoided submitting to custody. He isn’t hidden; we all know where he is. And the Ecuadorian embassy have officially stated that he’s available for questioning.
On why leaks and whistleblowers are essential…..
“Despite all this, our elected representatives has never been more hostile to leaks, and by extension, press freedom. During Obama’s first term, Congress—and the administration—has seemed more interested in putting the whistleblowers in jail than acting on the startling information they’ve exposed. At the Brennan hearing, some Senators were still more pre-occupied with leakers than the unprecedented constitutional issues they should’ve been grappling with. And last year, a House committee even held a hearing suggesting reporters who publish classified information should be thrown in jail.”
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/02/drones-controversy-shows-why-leaks-are-vital-democracy
Clark; I suspect CE will never show. If he’s not the GORAN hisself, he is an agent provocateur.
Where is Jon? Someone needs to monitor the site meter for IP’s, because I suspect the nym will change but the identity will remain the same.
Ben Franklin, if CE and Goran Rudling really are one, they’re really good at presenting consistent but different styles under their aliases.
I noticed that a spam comment was deleted some days ago, and another seems to have been deleted today, so someone is doing some site maintenance; Jon, I’d have thought, as Craig would post if he had time, and Craig rarely seems to read so far down a thread.
When I was moderating, various contributors complained that I should only express “neutral” positions, which seemed both unfair and impossible, so maybe that’s why Jon hasn’t commented recently.
Jon, if that’s you clearing spam, thanks for all your work.
The unredacted version of Christopher Dorner’s manifesto. As with the widely circulated redacted version, this has an oddly (seemingly) interrupted ending without any explanation as to why that is.
http://wap.myfoxla.com/w/main/story/84473837/
Arbed, allow me to add my commiseration to others here before me.
I haven’t addressed CE here as a dolt for nothing. I observed him close up through all the Assange threads and he stubbornly comes up short on his grasp of elementary issues. So, don’t let him get under your skin. But, from my heart i’d say please do choose your battles.
His apology is worth nought. Because these people are essentially intellectually dishonest their pattern of behaviour will repeat itself. It was only to hang in here whatever his agenda.
Btw, have you seen any offer by the Ecuadorian Government for Assange to be interviewed at their embassy in Stockholm? Or maybe thats just part of the behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations and linked up to a Swedish governmental assurance re onward extradition to the US.
Also, do you have a take on the consequences if, after the elections, Julian were to be given Ecuadorian nationality and a diplomatic position with of course a diplomatic passport? I read someone assert that all the UK could do utc is to not accept his credentials and expel him from the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/19/diplomatic-dilemmas-and-julian-assange
That would be fine from my perspective for one has pondered what negotiating levers does Julian/Ecuador really have in this stalemate IF Sweden is not willing to play ball and continues to sit on its hands; regardless of the delays from the complainants pov.
If i were Correa, i would also seriously consider appointing Julian Assange as Ecuador’s Head of its Permanent Mission to the UN at Geneva, or has been suggested previously, to the General Assembly itself. I expect Assange is taking Spanish lessons now. Good for him.
May Truth prevail.
Kempe, Julian is not the first political refugee in the world. As Jemima has said he spoke Truth to Power–hate that phrase, but we understand. In fact it is the Americans who would love to shut him up by hiding him away in a 10 x 10 and throwing away the key.
And how many weeks was he in Sweden that summer after the alleged offences? I mean the Swedes make Inspector Clouseau look brilliant….and he was. Britain should send Sweden every bill relating to all the costs incurred for their wholesale incompetence.
I believe Julian is genuinely keen to clear his name. I also believe that this whole saga is severely damaging the reputation of Sweden especially in the under-developed world. Do they care?
@Villager,
As the The Three Troll Stoogies are blissfully quite, it may be a good time to resume our previous discussion, but rather than add an off-topic discussion here, perhaps it would be better to continue on the original Defend Stephen Sizer thread; please check that thread about this time tomorrow as hopefully I will have amply time to post my latest thoughts.
“Assange has not even been charged, let alone convicted. Swedish prosecutors do not have to produce any evidence that he committed the alleged sexual offences to justify the warrant. On the basis of the allegations that I heard read out in court, the evidence seems feeble, but I concede that I don’t know the full facts. Neither does Assange. Stockholm’s chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, who heard the evidence against Assange in August, threw the case out of court, saying: “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”
That is not the reason I was there. I was there because I believe that this is about censorship and intimidation. The timing of these rehashed allegations is highly suspicious, coinciding with the recent WikiLeaks revelations and reinvigorated by a rightwing Swedish politician. There are credible rumours that this is a holding charge while an indictment is being sought in secret for his arrest and extradition to the US. An accusation of rape is the ultimate gag. Until proved otherwise, Assange has done nothing illegal, yet he is behind bars.
There is a fundamental injustice here. There are calls for the punishment (execution even) of the man who has reported war crimes, but not for those that perpetrated or sanctioned them.
On the one hand, the US is proud of its First Amendment and its long-standing commitment to the freedom of speech. It was announced last week that the US is to host next year’s Unesco World Press Freedom Day event, which champions in particular “the free flow of information in this digital age”.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/11/julian-assange-jemima-khan
How long has JA been sequestered in the Embassy? What is the basis of this week-old epiphany taking the scales off Khan’s eyes? She seems almost desperate to extract herself from her involvement. Strange development about which I will not speculate, but I don’t think it has anything to do with forfeited bail money.