Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Banea-Vaedr t1_iy3z2o8 wrote

While we're at it, free my boy Snowden

14

DennisHakkie t1_iy42d96 wrote

How is this not the onion? This seems to be a serious concern.

Yes, he stole top secret documents, but because of him, journalism was done. If he gets prosecuted, the US can just call every journalist a spy who looks dirty at the government.

And the best thing is? He ain’t even American, meaning the US can literally take everyone in the world because they see fit. It’s not about guilt or what he did, it’s about the president it sets

7

Helphaer t1_iy44j25 wrote

Ehhh he tailor picked what to share and stopped sharing anything against his benefactors. It's basically fox news.

9

DennisHakkie t1_iy454r3 wrote

That is true, but does that matter? Journalism is still journalism. Newspapers need to get money as well, if you have a certain demographic you need to cater to them… If the journalism is good, does it matter what gets published and what doesn’t?

2

Helphaer t1_iy45p99 wrote

I believe if you willfully lie or suppress opposing or conflicting information that is credible then you're likely to misrepresent situations and cause a reaction or feedback to them.

We see this on Fox news all the time. An informed public is vital. But a willfully lied to public is not. There are still echo chambered people who do not know the Jan 6th Capitol Attack wasn't antifa, wasn't Democrats, wasn't more than a tour, and so many more things. This influences them.

Assange influenced what others thought while preventing information that might conflict or balance.

In reality he should be seen as an unregistered political actor or saboteur in context. But how to properly classify and punish is a complicated task.

6

HandsomeDeviledHam t1_iy58ygh wrote

>If the journalism is good, does it matter what gets published and what doesn’t?

I think so. Let's say I have evidence company A and company B are both selling products that make your teeth fall out. But for whatever reason I only report the evidence about company A and I say nothing about about company B. The journalism is good and I'm not telling any lies but its completely reasonable to question my motivations.

3

Tonkarz t1_iy5pg61 wrote

Of course the difference between real journalism and raw propaganda is incredibly important.

3

DennisHakkie t1_iy5qolg wrote

Like, a good example would be about the Yakuza in the early to mid 90’s. The journalism was there, it just wasn’t published because A) everyone was afraid of them and B) they lined everyone’s pockets not to write about what they did.

Good journalism isn’t propaganda, that isn’t journalism. Every idiot with a typewriter can make propaganda

Flipside, most news has to be sexy now because of social media. Every time there’s a mass shooting somewhere you read the last messages or see a video victims sent to their loved ones, it’s insane. I personally try to only consume text only news nowadays because of that

1

Tonkarz t1_iy5pbmk wrote

Most journalist aren’t working for Putin. It’s a huge difference.

1

RaHarmakis t1_iy43p4i wrote

He didn't even steal them (in my opinion), and any evidence I've seen showing that he facilitated, or coached the individual who did has been pretty spurious at best.

I think the Not the Onion bit is how much the media has historically been against Assange. This is the take they should have had with him right off the bat as it sets a bad precedence for how government treats the recipients of leaks.

0

DennisHakkie t1_iy445wl wrote

Okay, true, he didn’t steal them, he just made them public… big difference, but the point I tried to make stays the same

Even for journalists what rakes in the clicks is important, you saw that with the Yakuza coverage in the early-mid 90’s in Japan. Papers didn’t cover them because the Yakuza gave them a lot of money. Same everywhere else, the news also caters to their demographics.

1

ricardo9505 t1_iy42mcp wrote

Agreed. Snowden first for me tho.

6

[deleted] t1_iy43oh5 wrote

[deleted]

5

nytefox42 t1_iy44gbm wrote

This. And too many people are willing to take him at his word because SOME of the information he's put out has been verified. He clearly has an agenda and I have no faith that he's catering the information, true or not, to paint a specific picture that may not align with reality. ( yes, you can tell a lie while speaking only truths )

5

WikipediaHistorian t1_iy4jgil wrote

How is this not the Onion? It is completely logical for media outlets to not want Assange prosecuted.

The US legal system is based on precedent. There's a reason why the Obama administration chose not to prosecute Assange despite really wanting to - they called it "the New York Times Problem", in other words, if Assange can be prosecuted for publishing government documents that were given to him by a third party, so could every major press outlet that has reported on documents leaked to them by whistleblowers.

0

datfngtrump t1_iy4h7ma wrote

Lol, gotta wonder what little secrets have not yet been exposed.

−1