"... the WikiLeaks team has racked up numerous awards for journalism over the years, including the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011), the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011), the International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011), the Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011), the Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013), and the Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014).
The claim that Assange is “not a journalist” is both an irrelevant red herring and a self-evident falsehood. It is made not by people with an interest in maintaining a small and specific linguistic understanding of what the word journalism means, but by people who want to see Julian Assange imprisoned by the same government which tortured Chelsea Manning because he made them feel emotionally upset. It’s a fact-free argument made entirely in bad faith for inexcusable motives: the desire to see a journalist imprisoned for telling the truth.
When someone says “Assange isn’t a journalist”, they aren’t telling you what Assange is. They’re showing you what they are. "
* I suspect the difference between 51°N and 56°N (ie, Scotland) in such a study would be much larger than most would think.
* From the authors: "It is important to note that this should be undertaken in the middle of the day, with exposure of lower arms and lower legs to maximise benefit."
Sufficient is enough, and yes I am aware that the difference at the other end of the country is indeed stark, the point being that southern Britain is still several degrees north of the parent post's Pacific Northwest, where it was said to be impossible.
>It has no bearing on anything as far as I can tell.
...It says a lot that all of your examples are from your own life. There are counter examples abounding that just aren't affecting you (to your knowledge), such as those stated in TFA, or CA, or Brexit etc.
Do you think these data brokers are selling our info for billions to rubes? Are insurance companies known for their gullibility? Are sale of lists of rape victims to 'whoever has money' A-OK, because you are not being personally affected?
... These trends are worsening. People aren't spending more and more on data that has "no bearing on anything". That it's invisible to you makes it worse.
Oh yeah, for sure. And for instance, if it were to happen to 5% of people, then there will be twenty people like me for one person who is unfairly affected but for that person it will be a complete nightmare.
And societally it's not okay to create a complete nightmare for like 5% of people. So I totally get it.
Just that if you live in the First World and live a normative interface (my drug use doesn't leak into the professional environment, my illegal imports are on the quiet) you can get away with a lot.
I don't think it's helpful to blame things on broad groupings of the political spectrum like "the left". But a discussion on how scary it is the social media platforms are shaping debate needs to acknowledge the existence of large, powerful movements demanding that they build the tools and precedent to do so.
I'm told by my blue friends that I'm naive. Reds call me a socialist.
This is by design. It is intentional. Billions of dollars are spent giving people these 'views'.
Sanders gave people an opportunity to vote for "those things", and he was the clear favorite to take out Trump - until Democrats pulled every dirty trick to scupper his campaign. Again.
So people really do want to vote for these things, but massive effort is put into not giving them the option. Sanders is the most popular politician in America, every year - and instead of helping him, instead of boosting him, the Blue team stabbed him in the front, in the back, in the eye balls, etc.
>until Democrats pulled every dirty trick to scupper his campaign
You mean it's the democrat's fault that 20 somethings didn't go vote?
I liked Bernie, I voted for him, but the demographic he targeted apparently preferred swiping through tik tok to improving their world so he learned a hard lesson a second time.
Zero articles in the past two weeks. If you've been following the case at all, there's been a Hell of a lot to report, from Amnesty and EU ministers despairing at having their monitor access revoked at the last minute, to Khaled El Masri's absolutely jaw-dropping testimony [1].
They have a front page post right now about "concern" over a "fan invasion" of the pitch in a GAA game (Gaelic Athletics Association). And another about some celeb confirmed to be on the next "Dancing with the Stars".
If anyone reading this is the type to blame people for being uninformed, please take this into account.
Holy shit. They sodomized him. They abducted, tortured and raped him. And Assange is going to jail for life because he offered to help crack a password. What a farce.
... And that picture is based completely on Assange being "autistic", "on the spectrum", "paranoid" and "narcissistic" - because he thinks his voice is important, that left wing media have been derelict in their duty and stabbed him in the back, and that powerful people are spying on him and want him assassinated.
That all of those things :are true: just doesn't factor in to O'Hagan's assessment, at all. He doesn't even begin to explore the possibility.
This speaks much more to O'Hagan's deep flaws than Assange's.
There is also the little problem of Assange believing that Leigh was part of a Jewish conspiracy against him—not the only time that his antisemitism has revealed itself.
I'm not seeing where your link makes any such claim.
It quotes Assange as saying ‘forget the Jewish thing’, after he allegedly pointed out that a number of people :shown to have lied about him: were Jewish.
BTW, 'The JC' were very big on the claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite, while effusive in their praise for Boris Johnson... Sorry but that's proper batty.
I had a look at their US news page, and while they had a front-page story about a BUDDHIST swastika necklace, the :forced sterilisation: scandal seems to have passed them by.
And if there's anything in their news about this trial and it's irregularities, and the significance to journalism, I haven't found it.
I’m not taking “them” seriously. What they report is factual—I’ve seen the quote by Assange repeated elsewhere. It‘s just a convenient reference. So most of your remarks smack of the ad-hominem. If someone says “A and B and C are acting against me—and they’re all Jewish,” that sounds to me like an antisemite complaining about a Jewish conspiracy against him. You are welcome to interpret it differently. Perhaps you find such rantings perfectly normal. But my interpretation is at least somewhat reinforced by some other comments made by Assange, complaining about Jewish journalists.
Wooow - that essay aged like milk. Not that it was much good to begin with - the majority of his criticism is based on calling Assange "paranoid" and "narcissistic" - because he thought there were people trying to spy on him and assassinate him.
Which there very much were.
I was curious if O'Hagan is at all apologetic, now that Assange's "paranoia" has been conclusively justified, but at least on his Twitter he shows no interest in the topic whatsoever.
Thanks for saving me any money I might ever have spent on his writing.
The claim that Assange is “not a journalist” is both an irrelevant red herring and a self-evident falsehood. It is made not by people with an interest in maintaining a small and specific linguistic understanding of what the word journalism means, but by people who want to see Julian Assange imprisoned by the same government which tortured Chelsea Manning because he made them feel emotionally upset. It’s a fact-free argument made entirely in bad faith for inexcusable motives: the desire to see a journalist imprisoned for telling the truth.
When someone says “Assange isn’t a journalist”, they aren’t telling you what Assange is. They’re showing you what they are. "
- from https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/07/assange-is-not-a-jou...