- Re: Only consistent since the conversion, apparently, b. T'other b gives some chapter and verse. Worth Archived Message
Posted by margo
on December 17, 2019, 11:21 am, in reply to "Only consistent since the conversion, apparently, b. T'other b gives some chapter and verse. Worth"
|
Interesting one from MoA. It seems churlish to call out people who have changed position and are now on the factual rather than ideological side of the debate. On the other hand, there's no room for naivete. As we saw with Corbyn - those progressives who are too gentle; too quick to uncritically forgive; too pliable, may fail to recognise their enemies and thus never hold their ground. There's quite a lot of 'changing' opinion and re-writing of past positions, at the moment, on various subjects ranging from Syria and White Helmets to Assange and the OPCW Report. Narratives are crumbling and journalists scramble to re-calibrate and/or stay ahead of inevitable tipping points. Those who called it right and put in the hard work in Syria, from the early days - people like Vanessa Beeley, Eva K Bartlett, Tim Anderson, Piers Robinson and others - were vilified and ignored. Now that other journalists with bigger platforms see the writing on the wall and realise there's no chance the USA can win the war in Syria, it's easy for them to opportunistically change sides -- from the losing to the winning side. Max Blumenthal - son of heavyweight Hillary Clinton supporter Syd Blumenthal - is a powerful and excellent journalist. He now comes around as Syria's champion: his work overshadows the vilified Vanessa Beeley. Does he ever acknowledge her? Happy to read his excellent work. Keeping an eye open though, for other shifts. Part of the function of intelligence 'journalism' is to nudge people along rivers that flow in particular directions or trickle into sandbanks. In another area, we see similar opportunistic shifting of positions. Journalists like Alan Rusbridger and George Monbiot now see the writing on the wall iro the proper legal and moral position on Julian Assange. After years of complicit silence as The Guardian traduced Assange, they've both changed position and speak up, calling for 'no extradition'. This looks like a strong position and re-writes a decade of complicit inaction. But 'no extradition' doesn't expose the fact that a decade of legal hounding - as University of Glasgow international law professor Nils Melzer has analysed - "has no legal basis". This is a disgraceful political show trial that snubs international law: the fact of the matter is that asylee Assange is now illegally held incommunicado in a UK prison, at US behest. The correct term - that Monbiot and Rusbridger fail to use, even as they step forward - is not 'extradition', but rendition. So they've rewritten part of their history and will be able to say "but we vigorously opposed his extradition" -- even as they ignore an extraordinary rendition **. Correct terms are important: there's a war on language and semantics. This is where Caitlyn Johnstone has been important. She draws attention to meaning and asks us to take note of who says what, when and why. ** The planned extradition and prosecution of Julian Assange by the USA is a “new form of forced rendition” and a “dangerous precedent” for press freedom, according to the WL editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson. Ahead of a private briefing for Australian parliamentarians, Harfnsson, an Icelandic-based investigative journalist, told the National Press Club in Canberra the “forced rendition” of Assange was not occurring “with a sack over the head and an orange jumpsuit but with the enabling of the UK legal system and with the apparent support of the Australian government”. |