It has been clear for many years now that The Guardian has been in the business of damaging Assange, by strategic design. As it is not only this duetto (who enriched with their Wikileaks book), who were after Assange, but several of its journalists and obviously the editorial position. Generally speaking, The Guardian has not been the same after Alan Rusbridger left. But with Assange and Wikileaks, they have systematically given the impression that they have been acting upon directions. Any time they have mentioned Wikileaks, they define it as “the transparency website” or somehting similar, never as a “publisher.” The Guardian should be taught in journalism schools as a case study on malpractice. Glaring thing that comes to mind: they have still not retracted the ridiculous Manafort story. Rusbridger’s role is a bit obscure to me. While he has made rightful public statements in favor of Assange, he does not seem to be part of his defense witnesses. Wasn’t he the Guardian’s editor when they collaborated with Wikileaks?
Jon, you are a life saver and hopefully that will include Julian
from being in the clutches of America’s military-industrial complex.
Please keep writing to CD, hopefully more commentators will realize
the loss Assange and Wikileaks will mean to truth in journalism.
The UK Old Baily court hasn’t changed much since Dickens’ mocked its
justice in Tale of Two Cities; it’s like the “Mad Hatters Tea Party” in Alice and Wonderland (John Pilger).
Luke Harding is a dubious journalist, as The Grayzone reports:
And The Guardian, once thought of as a liberal or even liberal-left paper,
increasingly looks as progressive as the New York Times.
Only its environmental coverage is sincere, it seems.