Most of us, I imagine are Guardian readers.
It is my understanding that:
– The Guardian was very happy to collaborate with Julian Assange to disseminate the leaked communications and documents that indicated war crimes committed by the US military. No doubt it saw this as a way of burnishing its radical, independent credentials – as it says at the end of every online article:
‘Fearless, investigative journalism shapes a fairer world. At The Guardian, our independence allows us to chase the truth wherever it takes us. We shed light on corruption, expose injustice and incompetence, and boldly tell stories of people and power that the world needs to hear.’
– It was Guardian journalists who disseminated unredacted documents that the US is arguing put its personnel at risk and is a central plank in its attempt to prosecute Mr. Assange for crimes of espionage. (NB Mr. Assange is reported as being meticulous in insisting that proper redaction took place.)
– The Guardian uncritically reported the accusations of sexual assault that were the basis of a request for extradition to Sweden. Such accusations have subsequently been dropped and legal opinion is that there was no basis to them.
– The Guardian failed to cover (at all really) the highly contentious extradition proceedings instigated by the USA and certainly did not question the appalling procedural difficulties placed in the way of Mr. Assange’s defence. (For insight into how these proceedings were conducted and the way in which defence submissions were hardly listened to, never mind given due weight, see Craig Murray’s blog).
It seems that The Guardian has not only turned its back on Julian Assange (so much for ‘fearless investigative journalism … boldly telling the stories of people and power that the world needs to hear’) but has become an attack dog for the establishment, seeking to undermine his credibility and rubbish him as a person.
Philip Roddis
Nice one Bryan – and thanks for the plug to my site.
I see that today’s Graun posts an editorial condemnation of the ruling.
This, as discussed in a post I wrote fifteen months ago – Julian, Guardian and the Law of Volitionality – is a textbook Guardian play: much shedding of tears, wringing of hands and displays of righteous anger; all after the fact of outcomes it did so much to facilitate.
Bryan
Indeed Phil, The Guardian editorial is breath taking in it’s hypocrisy:
‘It (the decision to allow extradition) is also a blow for all those who wish to protect the freedom of the press.’
So that’s all right then – The Guardian has once again flagged up its support for ‘fearless, investigative journalism’ – as though it has been standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Assange throughout his ordeal. What can you say that doesn’t descend to the language employed by Suzanne Moore and Marina Hyde in their ‘support’ of this man?
It strikes me that this approach is very similar to that employed by our present Prime Minister when dealing with uncomfortable truths – let’s pretend it never happened and let’s pretend we have always been on the side of the good guys.
Philip Roddis
In saying the Guardian published an “editorial condemnation of the ruling”, I was being absurdly generous. The piece in question, by the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, houses a one-sentence reference to it. Tucked into the penultimate paragraph we learn that “… the ongoing extradition of Julian Assange sets a terrible global precedent, because Assange is being prosecuted for making public classified information, something journalists do routinely …”
That aside, the piece has nothing to say about Julian.
ParfumDreams.de
Great content! Keep up the good work!
Bryan
Well thank you kindly Paul, although I suspect through our offline correspondence that this might have been an unintended comment as your email address is linked to a Malteese retail site!