358
Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder in last-ditch bid to avoid US extradition (www.bbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (12 children)

I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did.

Did we read the same comment? They literally called him a scumbag. 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (11 children)

    “A bit of a scumbag” dilutes the fact that he failed at the very mission people praise him for. I am happy to admit that I am was somewhat off in my initial reading of their comment. I do not want to get bogged down in that.

    The point is that Assange was a useful tool for a certain brand of politics and certain parties. We all need to recognize that. “He’s a bit of a scum bag” isn’t even close to the reality of how nefarious his actions were.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Do we need to recognize that while he's fighting for his freedom? Maybe that can wait?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (9 children)

    The truth is important. Isn’t that the whole point of Wikileaks?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Journalistic freedom is also important, and also the point of Wikileaks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (7 children)

    Unfortunately, what we actually learned is that WikiLeaks existed for him to help those he politically agrees with. There is a reason every self-respecting journalist who worked with WikiLeaks has since walked away and no, it is not because of the US government going after him. It’s because WikiLeaks wasn’t engaging in transparency and quality journalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Interesting assertion. Also irrelevant, because journalism doesn't have to be neutral. Plenty of journalists have an agenda, in fact I'd argue most of them do and the idea of impartial journalism is something some journalists made up to promote their own agendas.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children)

    I didn’t say journalists had to be neutral. I never used the word neutral. Objectivity is a myth and impossible to obtain.

    I’m saying these journalists didn’t want to work for a flagrantly partisan organization
    that lied about its commitment to transparency.

    If you want to be a mouthpiece for Putin and conservative talking points, then you need to not pretend you’re evenhanded and egalitarian with your leaks and publication.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The only people who don't pretend to be evenhanded and egalitarian are, like, indie communist zines. This is just a problem with the industry as a whole - everyone pretends to be neutral, even though literally no one is. That's not something unique to Assange, so kinda irrelevant imo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (3 children)

    So you don’t agree that the entire (claimed) raison d’être of wikileaks was that they were a haven for whistleblowers to bring their information to be vetted by quality journalists and released to the broader public, regardless of the political leanings of the information or people involved?

    I agree with you that we should not be thrusting that mandate on outlets. But that’s not what happened. WikiLeaks claimed to be a beacon of transparency. That is a bar they set for themselves. I don’t care if they are “biased“ or whatever, I care that their job is to release information (their own mandate) and then they withhold it when it isn’t convenient for Assange’s politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Again, all media outlets claim to be beacons of transparency. They all set this bar for themselves. Everyone claims they are fair and balanced. That's just the industry and everyone in it.

    Why, exactly, do you care that information was withheld? Are you just mad about false advertising?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Oh come on are you seriously going to play dumb now? WikiLeaks had a very specific purpose and goal. You cannot possibly compare it to a standard news outlet. You are really stretching things here. This has become a total waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •