The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Caitlin Johnstone: The Guardian Could Help Assange By Retracting All The Lies It Published About Him Archived Message

    Posted by sashimi on December 1, 2022, 1:16 pm

    30 November 2022

    (quote)
    The Guardian has joined The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País in
    signing a letter from the five papers which collaborated with WikiLeaks twelve
    years ago in the publication of the Chelsea Manning leaks to call for the Biden
    administration to drop all charges against Julian Assange. This sudden jolt of
    mainstream support comes as news breaks that Australian Prime Minister Anthony
    Albanese has been personally pushing the US government to bring the Assange case
    to a close.

    The Guardian's participation in this letter is particularly noteworthy, given
    the leading role that publication has played in manufacturing public support for
    his persecution in the first place. If The Guardian really wants to help end the
    persecution of the heroic WikiLeaks founder, the best way to do that would be to
    retract those many smears, spin jobs and outright lies, and to formally
    apologize for publishing them.

    This is after all the same Guardian which published the transparently ridiculous
    and completely invalidated 2018 report that Trump lackey Paul Manafort had met
    secretly with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, not once but multiple
    times. Not one shred of evidence has ever been produced to substantiate this
    claim despite the embassy being one of the most heavily surveilled buildings on
    the planet at the time, and the Robert Mueller investigation, whose expansive
    scope would obviously have included such meetings, reported absolutely nothing
    to corroborate it. It was a bogus story which all accused parties have
    forcefully denied and no serious person believes is true, yet to this day it
    still sits on The Guardian's website without retraction of any kind.

    This is the same Guardian which ran an article in 2018 titled "The only barrier
    to Julian Assange leaving Ecuador's embassy is pride", arguing that Assange
    looked ridiculous for continuing his political asylum in the embassy because
    "The WikiLeaks founder is unlikely to face prosecution in the US." The article
    was authored by the odious James Ball, whose article begins: "According to
    Debrett's, the arbiters of etiquette since 1769: 'Visitors, like fish, stink in
    three days.' Given this, it's difficult to imagine what Ecuador's London embassy
    smells like, more than five-and-a-half years after Julian Assange moved himself
    into the confines of the small flat in Knightsbridge, just across the road from
    Harrods."

    This is the same Guardian which published an article titled "Definition of
    paranoia: supporters of Julian Assange", arguing that Assange defenders are
    crazy conspiracy theorists for believing the US would try to extradite Assange
    because "Britain has a notoriously lax extradition treaty with the United
    States," because "why would they bother to imprison him when he is making such a
    good job of discrediting himself?", and "because there is no extradition
    request."

    This is the same Guardian which published a ludicrous report about Assange
    potentially receiving documents as part of a strange Nigel Farage/Donald
    Trump/Russia conspiracy, a claim based primarily on vague analysis by a single
    anonymous source described as a "highly placed contact with links to US
    intelligence". The same Guardian which has flushed standard journalistic
    protocol down the toilet by reporting on Assange's "ties to the Kremlin" (not a
    thing) without even bothering to use the word "alleged" on more than one
    occasion. The same Guardian which advanced many more virulent smears as
    documented in a 2018 article by The Canary titled "Guilty by innuendo: the
    Guardian campaign against Julian Assange that breaks all the rules."

    Even the wording of the joint letter itself is dishonest when coming from The
    Guardian.


    "This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt
    the need to publicly criticise his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the
    cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the
    indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified
    database," the letter reads. "But we come together now to express our grave
    concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and
    publishing classified materials."

    As we've discussed previously, the narrative that Assange recklessly published
    unredacted documents in 2011 is itself a dishonest smear, and the unredacted
    files were actually published elsewhere as the result of a real password being
    recklessly published in a book by Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke
    Harding (the same Luke Harding who co-authored the bogus Manafort-Assange
    story). Assange took extraordinary measures to try and minimize the damage that
    was done by those Guardian reporters, but wound up getting thrown under the bus
    and blamed for their actions anyway.

    If The Guardian is sincere in its stated desire to see the end of the
    persecution of Julian Assange, the single most effective thing it could do to
    help advance that goal would be to publicly acknowledge that it helped to
    deceive the world about him, and work to correct the record.

    The only reason Assange's case doesn't have more support currently is because so
    much of the public has been deceived into believing that what's happening is not
    the unconscionable persecution of a journalist for telling the truth, but rather
    the righteous prosecution of a sinister Russian agent who has broken laws and
    endangered lives. The Guardian easily played a larger role in manufacturing that
    collective misconception than any other single news outlet in the world, and as
    such it could do tremendous good by retracting and apologizing for its
    publications which fed into it.

    This is the sort of thing a publication would do if it was really interested in
    truth, justice, and journalistic ethics. Is it what the people who run The
    Guardian will choose to do? I highly doubt it.
    (/quote)
    -- https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/the-guardian-could-help-assange-by-retracting-all-the-lies-it-published-about-him-79b22fdecdd2

    Message Thread:

    • Caitlin Johnstone: The Guardian Could Help Assange By Retracting All The Lies It Published About Him - sashimi December 1, 2022, 1:16 pm