I have a feeling the embassy workers hugged as he was removed.
4 Likes
It’s a pretty big stretch to compare the bias and journalistic ethics of MSNBC to the bias and journalistic ethics of Wikileaks. Especially when the example you cite isn’t even real.
3 Likes
Rather than seeing it as a blatant payoff maybe they were going to turf him out and someone in the Ecuadorian government said “Hold on a second, let’s see if we can get anything for him first. And remember to take care of the cat”
5 Likes
On a site (BB) that devotes a non-trivial amount of volume to whistle-blowing stories of one type or another, it’s extremely ironic that Assange attracts so many negative comments.
Just sayin’…
6 Likes
I remember the time MSNBC showed an empty podium where OrangeAnus was going to speak. He didn’t show for like 30 minutes but MSNBC never cut away. There must’ve not been other election news that night.
Oh, wait…
5 Likes
Just because he’s worked with whistleblowers doesn’t mean he isn’t also an asshole who endangered innocent lives and actively worked to put a fascist in power.
BoingBoing has also devoted a non-trivial amount of volume to women of color in politics, but that doesn’t mean we have to say a bunch of nice things about Candace Owens.
15 Likes
But Mike Pompeo hates Assange, and since Orange Julius has an attention span of like 5 minutes, Pompeo is more likely to get his druthers on the matter.
4 Likes
None of that has anything to do with why he was dragged out of the embassy, nor has any of it to do with why he will (probably) be “disappeared”.
3 Likes
Faulty analogy. You don’t see the difference between identity, versus active work like whistleblowing?
Whistle blowing should be politically neutral - no matter who gets hurt, I wanna know when people in power are abusing that power. You can claim that Assange picked and chose what he decided to divulge, but without some clear evidence on that matter we’ll never know, so that kind of hypothetical is a non-starter.
That’s why it is ironic.
5 Likes
I was told elsewhere that he is a “journalist” and should not be subject to criminal prosecution.
He should end up in the same cell as Individual 1.
One article about the most significant part of her record doesn’t count for that much. I could also point out their breathless red-baiting these last two years(including bringing Clapper on and presenting him as a credible source, without bringing up his documented record of lying under oath), and that, this election cycle, they have avoided discussing anything bad about establishment candidates (Harris’ record as AG, Klobuchar’s support of the Libya invasion and government spying powers). While consistently smearing anti war candidates, and avoiding ever mentioning why they’re smearing them.
Regardless, none of that is criminal. Nor is anything Assange published. I think he’s an asshole, but not for having a vendetta against Clinton. When someone who has the power to order extrajudicial kidnapping and assassination, and has used that power, publicly talks about assassinating you, if you want to hold a grudge against them and pursue a vendetta forever, that’s on them, not you.
5 Likes
Funny, I was just reading that he IS a journalist.
6 Likes
Whistleblowing is good, persecuting whisteblowers is bad, rape is wrong regardless of whether you are a whistleblower, using rape victims as pawns to go after political enemies is despicable, and that if you are going to seek asylum at an embassy you should probably take care of your cat. It’s just a shit show all the way from top to bottom with no hint of irony anywhere.
24 Likes
BB is much more diverse than most people realize. Oftentimes the trollies just get in the way of regulars arguing over things that outsiders assume we all sync on via librul hive mind. Sorry to shatter the fantasy.
12 Likes
Why would wikileaks be held to any journalistic ethics? They aren’t a news org, just like our beloved BB, and hence complaining about their lack of journalistic integrity isn’t applicable. 
Though now both the left and the right can agree on something and condemn wikileaks, albeit for different reasons.
1 Like
I think that’s the kitty holding on for dear life to his chin
3 Likes
Yes, the Times gets it wrong., But they do so less often than, say, Assange.
For the curious, the unsealed DoJ indictment is online. The specific charge is helping Chelsea Manning to try to crack a DoD password.
4 Likes
First, evidence for that claim, please.
Secondly, the NYT is supposed to be a News Organization with all the responsibilities that entails. OTOH, Wikileaks publishes leaks against the considerable power that their targets can muster, on a shoestring budget. I believe their advertising revenue, for example, is about infinity percent less than the NYT.
3 Likes
I am exasperated, but not surprised, that the UK Government (may the gods damn them and all their doings) and Ecuadorean Government did nothing with regarding Assange while it was Swedish women making sexual assault and rape complaints (because, women, who cares, right), but folded immediately on the production of an extradition request from the US. I know the regime change in Ecuador probably has some influence on this, but I’m sure the UK Government would have been able to obtain Assange for the Swedes from the Ecuadoreans at any point during the last seven years if the political will to do so had existed. I wonder how thick the nice brown envelope that the Ecuadoreans have trousered is, and who stumped up for it.
2 Likes
