Stella Assange speaking to the Luxembourg Parliament on the persecution of Julian Assange

  • SLfgbOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Do you have a copy of his editorial policy? I’d like to read it.

      • SLfgbOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        yea those large troves of archives sure do look cherry picked… (not) In any case, even if you’re right, editorial bias is not a crime. Every major (and minor) news outlet has editorial bias.

          • SLfgbOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            So an organisation (WikiLeaks) that collects primary documents from anonymous inside sources whose identity it protects, verifies the authenticity of the documents, analyses them, collaborates with major news outlets around the world in publishing them for maximum journalistic impact, is what, “not a news outlet”, just a “site”? Please.

            The fact is, if not for WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning would likely not have released those documents because every news outlet she contacted first had no secure communication and didn’t take her calls seriously. It was the secure dropbox WikiLeak pioneered that revolutionised journalism. Many of the legacy media have since adopted similar tech.

            Julian has won numerous journalism awards. His publications helped end the Iraq war and enabled torture victims to get justice.

            “The aim is justice, the method is transparancy.” - Julian Assange

              • SLfgbOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                8 months ago

                Please read up on the Iraqi gov decision making pre-US withdrawal and get back to me after.

                They decided US troops could no longer be immune to prosecution due to what they learnt from certain docs released by WL, describing possible murders. This then spurred the US withdrawal.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        TL;DL? At least, a little bit more detail, ie what they did and what they claimed the policy was.

        • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.

          Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).

            WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.

            I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.

          • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.

            Source: Mediastan (2013)

            And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.

            • SLfgbOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Actually the Clinton/Podesta emails revealed a lot of dirt on Trump too, dirt the DNC had dug up…

            • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              How could a secretary of state be involved in prosecution? That’s completely outside their job description and it isn’t as if that’s a job with a lot of free time.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                You somehow think that the release of the State Department cables have nothing to do with the secret indictment?

                • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  There is no secret indictment. We know exactly what the allegations are because that information is public.

                  Regardless of that the Secretary of State is not providing direct input into the prosecution of an individual.

                  In Assange’s specific case he was charged during Trump’s presidency so Hilary could not at any point have been involved in his prosecution.

                  You are confused and you likely read shitty sources.