*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 2:52pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter gwiz665.

Good man for walking. Stupid fucking journalist. She had enough warnings. Pathetic smear campaign to distract viewers from the actual issues.

A redditor pointed out in their comment thread that even the lighting is skewed against Assange. I was a tad ashamed for not noticing that during the interview - then again, perhaps I was too dumbfounded by the interviewer.

He had to take a....



...imsoashamed...

I did notice the lighting (red, skewed patch, purposed to dramatise his personality).

Im wondering why was the sound so fucked up? Was this a leaked tape of the wikileaks founder? The crew seemed properly set up, having two cameras. If I rewatched the vid, Im sure I would be able to see the "interviewer"'s wireless mic.

Anyhoo. He is an interesting fellow.

Media and the State sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes statism with military abusage.

Amateurish in every way. Pointless topics, terrible sound, poor lighting, stupid looking set and the interviewer has no clue what she is doing. I remember a time when CNN was a halfway decent news outlet.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good on him. Seems like a much more cluey than the Newsbot that's interviewing him.

Gawker has a particularly douchey take on this: http://gawker.com/5671626/wikileaks-founder-will-walk-out-of-your-interview-if-asked-about-his-rape-case

Looks like a second-rate Bond villain.

Is anything really surprising out of Gawker? The more we keep clicking on their blog posts that feel entirely generated to get eye-balls, the more they'll live. The best thing is to ignore them and stop looking at their website but I know, we just can't help ourselves We click to be outraged.>> ^dag:

Good on him. Seems like a much more cluey than the Newsbot that's interviewing him.
Gawker has a particularly douchey take on this: http://gawker.com/5671626/wikileaks-fo
under-will-walk-out-of-your-interview-if-asked-about-his-rape-case

You're supposed to save the tough question for last.

So, how about those atrocities?

Good for him. Why should we care if the leader of an organization is unethical in his personal and professional life.

>> ^chilaxe:

Good for him. Why should we care if the leader of an organization is unethical in his personal and professional life.


Actually, the phrase you are looking for is "allegedly unethical in his personal and professional life."

Unless you've got a link to his conviction on the now dropped charge?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=julian+assange+rape+charge+dropped

G'luck with that...

>> ^chilaxe:

Good for him. Why should we care if the leader of an organization is unethical in his personal and professional life.


What the fancy are you talking about?

I wish I was a lightning rod.

@Asmo, @Gallowflak

1. Why lead on the groupies we fuck to believe we care about them, and then knowingly lie that their accusations originated from the Pentagon?

2. As the head of an organization, isn't there some responsibility to not be an asshole to our subordinates, even if they're powerless to do anything about it except quit our organization?


The idea that journalists shouldn't keep people honest if we happen to like the person seems to go against the idea of a free press.

@chilaxe

You must have a source of information that is arcane to me.

Adrian Chen, is that you?
>> ^chilaxe:

@Asmo, @Gallowflak
1. Why lead on the groupies we fuck to believe we care about them, and then knowingly lie that their accusations originated from the Pentagon?
2. As the head of an organization, isn't there some responsibility to not be an asshole to our subordinates, even if they're powerless to do anything about it except quit our organization?

The idea that journalists shouldn't keep people honest if we happen to like the person seems to go against the idea of a free press.

@Gallowflak, the necessary sources were posted above by Dag. That Gawker article links to other articles, and we can see all their articles on Assange here: http://gawker.com/search/assange/

For example:

But if Mr. Assange is sustained by his sense of mission, faith is fading among his fellow conspirators. His mood was caught vividly in an exchange on Sept. 20 with another senior WikiLeaks figure. In an encrypted online chat, a transcript of which was passed to The Times, Mr. Assange was dismissive of his colleagues. He described them as “a confederacy of fools,” and asked his interlocutor, “Am I dealing with a complete retard?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?hp

Sorry, Julian, but you were the one who spun your botched tryst with a couple Swedish groupies into a devious Pentagon "smear campaign." Until they produce their spy IDs or the case is closed, you're going to have to live with questions about it.

http://gawker.com/5671626/wikileaks-founder-will-walk-out-of-your-interview-if-asked-about-his-rape-case

@chilaxe, that's what I was afraid you'd say.

Claims like those require information, not hear-say and the absurd purging of a peculiarly biased and emotional Gawker writer. I refer specifically to the supposed rape case. I mean, the not-rape case. The bad touching accusation.

I'm not opposed to the idea that Mr. Assange is a douchebag, nor am I allied against the notion that he puts his dick in women who don't want him to - although this second claim requires far, far more evidence, and it would be insane and morally bankrupt to assume a position either way, considering the lack of that evidence. There's certainly nothing reliable in the public domain.

However, even if he immolated kittens, it would have no reflection whatsoever on the value, or lack thereof, of the leak of the Iraq reports and the information within. For the journalist to pursue him specifically on the point of those accusations is an attempt to obfuscate what is actually going on and is shoddy, stupid and disgusting.

His demeanor is secondary to the event of this leak, and she should not be insisting on rumour and bad publicity in the current situation. By all means, investigate the claims made against Assange, but the quotes you provided - and Chen in particular - is insufficient evidence and, further, irrelevant.

@Gallowflak

If Glenn Beck is in an unresolved dispute with his subordinates, it's within journalism's scope to bring that up when he's being interviewed for whatever his latest issue is.

Regardless of that, though, Assange himself tied his lie about the source of the rape accusations directly to Wikileaks' activities, making it part of the issue.

If this happened to Karl Rove or Glenn Beck, most people in this thread would seek to be first in line to mock and condemn them for walking out of the interview.


The above described type of tribalism is one of the main reasons politics seems anti-intellectual to me.

Quick! Someone explain why morality politics were invented!

Remember Kennedy? Didn't he fuck around a lot? Why didn't anyone care back then? I seem to remember him being a well liked President. All this bullshit "the morality of our leaders" crap is nothing but a marketing technique. Like Bill Maher said of Bush the First "LOOK AT ME, I FUCK MY WIFE! WE ARE THE WIFE FUCKERS! VOTE FOR US, WE FUCK OUR WIFES!"

I also seem to recall that an animal-loving vegetarian celibate (sorry for the Godwin) was one of the crappiest leaders ever. The bottom line is, all of this personal life politics is bullshit. Who the hell cares what leaders do in their personal time? We REALLY should care how we are affected by their political actions, and there is no denying the positive power of Julian's actions, which is why the corporate tards at CNN and the rest are left with no option but play the smear card.

There is plenty of denying the "alleged positive aspects" of what wikileaks is doing. There has been almost nothing that is either new or surprising that comes from the leaks. They are released in a disorganized mishmash which makes them completely incomprehensible. This isn't the pentagon papers. Julian Assange is trying to call himself a journalist for proving war is ugly. That's not news. It's treason. It's demagoguery. It's an ego trip. It's not news.

In fact, the Das Spiegel interview highlights the tyrannical control he's taken of the organization. HE has made it an organization about Julian Assange, not the press. So long as he does that, he can accept full blame for the questions he receives. I don't mind transparency of information. I think Blog Del Narco, for example, does a good job of giving a transparent view of the Mexican drug wars. I just think wikileaks doesn't do a good job largely because of Julian Assange, and his insistence on a particular model. I completely agree with Daniel Schmidt. He should step down in order to deflect these questions, and allow someone else to discuss the meat of their work.

@chilaxe
What's the more important issue here:

1. The murder of 100,000 innocent people by a coalition of top governments.

2. An eccentric pissy hacker that swiped some Swedish side-boob.

Like kranzfakfa said, vegetarian painter was Hilter.
By your logic that means that the Nazi party probably did great stuff!

Back to the main issue tho.
~~~~

"Hundreds of documents released on October 22, 2010, by Wikileaks reveal beatings, burnings, and lashings of detainees by their Iraqi captors. Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes, Human Rights Watch said."

"These new disclosures show torture at the hands of Iraqi security forces is rampant and goes completely unpunished. It’s clear that US authorities knew of systematic abuse by Iraqi troops, but they handed thousands of detainees over anyway."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/24/iraq-wikileaks-documents-describe-torture-detainees

Somehow I feel like Assange is being set-up to be the next international super-villain, a la Osama.

That, or he's already been co-opted and is working to include American anti-Iranian propaganda in leaks.

It'd be foolish to not at least give this some thought as a possibility.

Organizations that can significantly effect change are always the first to be targeted for subversion and infiltration.

Chilaxe, I haven't been following this very closely. I know Assange has claimed that the rape allegation was a smear campaign orchestrated by some 3rd party. Implying either it was a honey trap or his former lovers had been bribed or coerced after the fact. Why do you say he's knowingly lied about that?

And to respond to other comments. Of course his personal life has no bearing at all on the authenticity of the documents published by Wikileaks, or on the debate about the impact of such leaks. That should go without saying. But, I've got to disagree with kranzfakfa that allegations of rape are somehow comparable to infidelity scandals. One is a very serious and devastating crime, the other is not a crime at all and merely embarrassing. Either the people accusing him have done something horrible, or he has done something horrible. But since he hasn't been legally accused or any evidence offered, for the time being you have to presume he's innocent.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chilaxe" title="member since April 27th, 2007" class="profilelink">chilaxe
What's the more important issue here:
1. The murder of 100,000 innocent people by a coalition of top governments.
2. An eccentric pissy hacker that swiped some Swedish side-boob.
Like kranzfakfa said, vegetarian painter was Hilter.
By your logic that means that the Nazi party probably did great stuff!
Back to the main issue tho.
~~~~
"Hundreds of documents released on October 22, 2010, by Wikileaks reveal beatings, burnings, and lashings of detainees by their Iraqi captors. Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes, Human Rights Watch said."
"These new disclosures show torture at the hands of Iraqi security forces is rampant and goes completely unpunished. It’s clear that US authorities knew of systematic abuse by Iraqi troops, but they handed thousands of detainees over anyway."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/24/iraq-wikileaks-
documents-describe-torture-detainees


HOW DARE YOU! Hitler WAS NOT a Vegetarian! So sayeth QI so it shall be remembered!

I don't have strong views on Assange and I'm not informed of the rape allegations. I am interested in how the media has engaged with him, which has been almost universally negative. I wonder if it's so negative because they see Wikileaks as yet another attack on old media: 'That damn internet trumps us again' kind of stuff.

>> ^entr0py:

But, I've got to disagree with kranzfakfa that allegations of rape are somehow comparable to infidelity scandals. One is a very serious and devastating crime, the other is not a crime at all and merely embarrassing. Either the people accusing him have done something horrible, or he has done something horrible. But since he hasn't been legally accused or any evidence offered, for the time being you have to presume he's innocent.


Of course, but you missed my point. Obviously I wasn't saying that rape is a-ok. I'm saying that the accusations against Assange are derived from the knowledge that if you smear someone's private life, you deflect heat from the real problems. What better way to do that than with the A-bomb of accusations, rape. The only thing better would be to accuse him of being a pedophile (give it time). And as you said yourself, there is no evidence of anything. Its just a wild accusation being shouted a lot and very loud. The bigger the lie, a lie told a thousand times, etc. (Dammit, my second Godwin on this thread).

>> ^Yogi:

HOW DARE YOU! Hitler WAS NOT a Vegetarian! So sayeth QI so it shall be remembered!


WHAT? You can't argue with QI. My worldview is rocked. Was he at least myopic, mono-testicled and a drug addict? Oh, the disappointment!

Of course the real story that should be discussed in this interview that is essentially ignored by the journalist is here: http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-Press-Conference-London-2010-Iraq-War-Diaries

Sorry kanzfrafka, I should have known that wasn't where you were going with that. You're right, even if the allegations never lead anywhere, the damage to his reputation is already done. Character assassination is easy to pull off with how scandal crazed the media has become.

If showing that Uncle Sam is a piece of shit just like everybody else is treason, so be it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/secret-war-at-the-heart-of-wikileaks-2115637.html

This Article goes on about a Civil war brewing at Wikileaks. Although I find the timing of the Article suspect I usually trust the Independent.

Just as well if there are some former employees of Wikileaks that want to contribute more small leaks that will help shape reform in smaller closed off countries or corporations then how about they create their own Wikileaks? Someone should gather these people together...it's not hard it's all over the internet, and get them working on a smaller leak program. It wouldn't have to go after the American military machine because that seems to be covered...instead it could include all of what Wikileaks doesn't.

And hopefully the more of these programs pop up the more free our Media will become because they cannot simply ignore this stuff. Just look at when Blogs get ahold of something and it's all they can talk about...the media eventually has to comment on it. Lets put some pressure on them...start up more sites!

Leaker doesn't like leaking when it's about himself. Film at 11.

Quite frankly, the U.S. military just needs to man up and stop giving a $#!+ about what other people think about their actions. If there are abuses that are brought to light then they should just handle them internally and tell everyone else to go take a long walk off a short pier.

Chasing around the ever-moving target of public opinion (especially as defined by the East Coast Media Monopoly) is a fruitless, pointless endeavor for a military organization. Here is how a military works when it is trying to actually ACCOMPLISH things...

1. Military decides on an objective.
2. Military goes about accomplishing target objective as quickly & efficiently as possible.
3. Military succeeds.

Here is how a military runs when it wants to repeatedly EPIC FAIL

1. Let civilian politicians and media twerps decide the objectives
2. Constantly redefine objectives to meet the shifting standards of aforementioned politicians & media twerps.
3. Military fails.

The military only needs to say one thing to any reporter. "It's war. People die. Deal with it."

Essential research:

Argumentum ad Hominem.

^ $50 says at least one of us works for Wikileaks, and at least one of us works for Gawker.

>> ^Throbbin:

^ $50 says at least one of us works for Wikileaks, and at least one of us works for Gawker.


Well it Certainly isn't ME!

<.<
>.>

>> ^entr0py:

Chilaxe, I haven't been following this very closely. I know Assange has claimed that the rape allegation was a smear campaign orchestrated by some 3rd party. Implying either it was a honey trap or his former lovers had been bribed or coerced after the fact. Why do you say he's knowingly lied about that?

Because anonymous tips from a "close friend" reported by some douche on Gawker can't possibly be made up bullshit.

>> ^entr0py:

Sorry kanzfrafka, I should have known that wasn't where you were going with that. You're right, even if the allegations never lead anywhere, the damage to his reputation is already done. Character assassination is easy to pull off with how scandal crazed the media has become.


Especially since the media jump all over allegations like a pack of pirhanas and then bury retractions on page 20.

Old Media Noob- "How much sideboob did you catch hold of?"

Anarchic Media Mogul- "... this isn't about snagging tons of rad, Swedish sideboob; I'm the captain of the ghost ship Wikileaks, and my anonymous crew need me as a man of legend... unshakable from my quest to free all information."

O.M.N.- "About those anonymous minions; some seem to not agree with you leaking names of operatives and whatnot, since, you know, Taliban's got computers too."

A.M.M.- "... who said that... was it Jake? Did you interview Jake? OMG that retard..."

O.M.N.- "Yeah, and some other folks are kinda like, 'woah, Julian is tweaking on being the big dogg of a group that one would assume would run fine in 2010 without a big dogg, or any set leaders for that matter, especially ones allegedly copping sideboobage'."

A.M.M.- "...I'm outta here."

blocked