Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian's Complicated Relationship With Julian Assange
Sonny Yatsen writes "Vanity Fair has published an interesting behind-the-scenes look at the unlikely and tumultuous working relationship between WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and The Guardian as the Iraq War Logs were being published. The piece highlights the differences and conflicts between the Guardian's journalistic standards and WikiLeaks' transparency. Particularly interesting is the revelation that Julian Assange threatened to sue The Guardian if they publish a portion of Iraq War Logs leaked to them by a disgruntled WikiLeaks volunteer, claiming 'he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.'"
What was he thinking? Threatening to sue? Did he really say he "owned" the documents?
This is exactly the problem everyone has with Assange and why Openleaks will replace Wikileaks.
Wikileaks no longer acts as a leak facilitator, it is not a political organization which selects what to leak, when, how. It's no longer a technology that acts like a dumb pipe, it's no longer functioning under network neutrality, it's now controlled top down by God aka Julian Assange.
Wikileaks will be buried a year from now. Openleaks and many other organizations far superior will replace Wikieaks. Assange over estimated his importance.
And I'm not someone who likes leaking in general, but if they are going to facilitate leaks then it has to be a dumb pipe which has no ability of the facilitator to decide what does or does not get leaked, how, or any of that. It should pass through the facilitator technology directly to the news organization, and there should be no interaction between the facilitator organization or it's technology and the sources EVER.
is being spread through Cryptome. The rumor that he is an informant for the Austrlian Federal Police does seem to be backed up by the story about him receiving warnings from Austrlian intelligence about dirty tricks.
This is something worth looking into. Whether or not there is any truth to it or not, it's worth looking into for that reason but also to determine whether or not it is a smear campaign or global conspiracy to break Assange.
....we've heard enough about Julian's complicated relationships, thank you very much CIA.
http://wlcentral.org/node/839
The Guardian do not have clean hands in this matter.
Hardly a disinterested party. Reads more like a novel. And damn near as long.. In the meantime, all the "confidential" gossip is a nice side story.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Wouldn't it be better to threaten the guardian with not revealing any more info ever to the Guardian if they published something not sanctioned in the relationship? That has a lot more punch then, "I will try to persuade a judge to side with me in an argument and you will rue the day." Let the Guardian decide how important it is to get the scoop from Wikileaks. I bet they don't publish so they can keep their relationship and get the early scoop. The business decision will be whether the Guardian can make enough revenue on the ill-gotten info to justify breaking the relationship.
But I thought information wanted to be free? Isn't that what Julie has been telling us all along? Is it possible he is using all of this for his own personal gain?
And "The Guardian" is not plural. It is a newspaper. It DOES not have clean hands.
Well well well.
BIG difference if this was all a "for the public/good/mankind" effort.... making money from this stuff makes him look like a bloody spy/traitor/commercial scumbag.
This really changes the tenor, doesn't it?
It will be interesting to read the spin now. This act alone may be the unravelling.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
'nuff said
Assange had a financial inerest in how and when it was released.
No surprises here! I'd respect Assange if he lived up to his hype about "open access." Now we know why there are alternatives to WikiLeaks.
(and yes, I did read the WLCentral.org item before posting. Shamir himself is not without controversy: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309818.html
I have a feeling the financial interests he was referring to could potentially be money given to him by other media outlets so they too can print the cables.
Wikileaks requires funding and with paypal etc cutting it he could well be using the media as a substitute to donations, which isn't necessarily bad.
If the Guardian was to publish documents before he was able to get them to other paying outlets that would cause them to get stroppy as they are no longer able to be first equal to print highly sought after information. This could then be viewed as favorite to one media outlet hurting not only relations with outlets but Wikileaks reputation.
The way he said it could be easily misconstrued but it really sounds more like sheer anger and bad wording rather then anything else.
TL;DR: Guardian printing out of turn would cause a Charlie Foxtrot situation in many ways and Julian was angry at the thought.
I'm sorry, did somebody use the phrase "journalistic standards" and "The Guardian" in the same sentence?
I mean, even if he thought so, what are the chances that he actually said.
Smells of bullshit to me.
"The way he said it"
We don't know _how_ he said it. All we how is how the reporter paraphrased it. And it isn't even a paraphrased quote as such, it's merely a summary of something that was allegedly said.
Guardian makes money selling advertising. The longer they string out the release of documents, the more times people come to visit the web site. Sure they might have gotten some additional documents and the potential for a scoop, but then they came back to their senses and decided that they can make more money with Assenage than without him.
Can't see my posts.
Oh look, yet more character assassination of Julian Assange.
At this point everything about him should be taken with a giant fucking grain of salt.
I dunno. Will people instead risk their job and freedom... just to make some dickweed richer?
I mean, as long as it was some rhetoric about government transparency and accountability and all, sure, I can see how it would resonate right with a lot of people. But if that information just ends up "owned" by Assange and used to make some money for _him_, then wth, those people leaking stuff are just some unpaid sharecroppers.
And really, the right idea is that the government and information about the government belongs to the _people_. And, wth, at what point does that become "owned by Assange" or "for sale to the highest bidder"?
Disclaimer: I'm not entirely unbiased there. I've had the brief misfortune of being a coder on a MUD whose admins and all were very heavy on the OSS, openness and whatnot rhetoric. Then it turns out they're only for openness when it isn't about "their" code, meaning actually the code contributed by idealistic peons like yours truly. In fact, it was a whole surrealistic paranoia where everyone is out to steal "their" files and you had to jump through hoops and be treated like a spy to even get the headers you need to contribute such code. Now the situation isn't entirely similar, and it doesn't make me a freedom fighter or anything. But just saying that I happen to know first hand how it feels to contribute something in the name of some idealistic noble goal, and see it turned into someone else's property and glory. And it's a very bitter pill.
And I can't help think how the guy who risked losing his job or going to jail to contribute those documents must feel when he reads that they're now Assange's private property, and that it's about making Assange money rather than any idealistic noble goal. I mean, wth, I didn't risk anything and still felt majorly shafted. How does it feel to think "I might go to jail if found out and/or be the guy nobody hires any more because of that, but damn, I made Assange some money"? Probably not fun.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
.If you think the guy's doing this for financial interest ?
I mean.. what he's doing and how, requires money anyway. If he gets the documents and spends whole lot of cash in the process of living that way and doing what he does, of course he needs money. It's how the system works. He isn't stupid.
Either that or he really is a douche bag.
I'm more interested in the message, but good or bad it doesn't stop the messenger from being an asshole.
This never should have been about him, but it seems he wanted his name and self out there. Smear campaign or not, he brought this shit on himself. Seems we can't have a Wikileaks story that doesn't mention or completely focus on the prick/saint. If Wikileaks were faceless, then the media would have to choose between focusing on the story or ignoring it. Assange has let them cop out and focus on the man.
Do you see what's going on here?
The Character assassination plot on Assange was a major success. He's been in jail not so long, and the story is slowly going cold. Nobody is discussing it so eagerly anymore. Also, Julian's public image went down. Regardless of whether what The Guardian is saying is true or not, 30 days ago virtually nobody on /. would have bought the Guardian's story. Or we would've at least questioned it, not taking it as fact.
Julian is in jail. Nobody believes in him anymore. Wikileaks is dead, and nobody even noticed. The CIA pulled yet another successful operation on its own people and the world, and the press took care of cleaning up after them. And nobody gives a fuck.
I see very few people here that understand this. As usual, we are a minority, but when even in /., when everybody here is a minority, you can only see a minority of the minority display any kind of reasoning skills, you can tell something's fucked up.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I would've entitled this "why I think you're rong" or something else slapped off clever but, I think if I could add to your viewpoint some history (which repeats ad nauseum) you may edit your view a bit.
P.T.Barnum
Malcom McLaren
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Maury Povich
Karl Marx
Bill Gates
Julian Assange
Who?
Try Wikipedia or just google them.
What do these men have in common?
They all got their fame/fortune from creating chaos and havoc from bubblegum and bullshit, then hanging ten on the crest the rest of the way to the beach.
What is my point in that?
They have market recognition built to a fever pitch which is why any Johnny-come-lately may have to wait a season or few before he gets his shot on " So You Think You Can Leak" , "Leaking with the Stars", or "Hells Leakers".
Sad as I am to think it , I don't think this is Openleaks year.
I am someone who loves leaking in general. If you can't conduct yourself in the world honestly, we all need to know because we have a vested interest in perpetuating the higher values in mankind and starving dishonest hoodlums out lest we lose our asses, nay, our lives to your viral greed. ,after all, among mankinds biggest enemies right after the plague, famine and Hillary Clintons ever growing cellulite saddlebags.
Yes, fuck whining from governments, Megacorporations and the News Media. They are
Leak away.
Come whisper in my ear.
What did they do to steal from me today?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I supported the goals of WikiLeaks, supported the war diary releases and the believe openness in government is essential. But Assange is the weak leak. While he was in jail little to nothing was posted. All the Money donated is donated directly to him, not some foundation. He's claimed it's so he can be the lighting rod the face of wikileaks. But what I really see is an egotistical asshole that's motivated more by self interest that anything else. There is a very noble goal in trying to give the public access to government secrets with care taken not to reveal irrelevant information that can only be used to harm. And I support anyone trying to do that.
But Assange has put himself in the position of gatekeeper for the whole organization. He's essential to releases, access to funds and websites. He thinks his little insurance packet he released will protect him. But ask yourself this: what good is his insurance package if he's the only one that knows the key and no one can talk to him because he's dead or in solitary confinement with no access to any living person. That gives the governments of the world motivation to hit the organization at it's weak point, Assange himself. He's also demonstrated a significant lack of judgement and if this story is true he thinks he personally has sole control of the material which he doesn't own and the US government labels as stolen.
Ever since the decision to release all the diplomatic cables without any kind of filter on information that might be sensible to just let drop I've personally felt he's a danger to this cause. This was exacerbated by his conduct in promiscuous (and irresponsible, god who has unprotected sex these days and then refuses to be tested for STD's) conduct in Sweden, his lack of foresight to line up the press credentials before he decided to piss off every western government and his general actions limiting himself to the only one with control or access to donated money, his reaction to his own police report leaking and now this belief that he is the owner of this material.
Assange is the weak point at wiki-leaks. Make no mistake there are people that know this and will use it, as other posters have said other organizations will take over once this one is destroyed and it will be. I also think he's the type to take others down with him, so if you've worked with him at nefarious purposes you better be very afraid because he will spill the beans on you.
There's a view that governments are so powerful and omniscient that only a government can defeat itself. This view gives us things like some 9/11 conspiracies and sadly things like where the post above is leading.
Exposure to how many of these groups are nowhere as effective as they are on TV helps cure some of this. For instance in Australia we nearly had a bloodbath with ASIS operatives in a botched training mission carrying unloaded submachine guns versus armed Victorian State Police at a time when they almost had a weekly body count.
We also know that the CIA didn't kill Kennedy because whoever did it actually managed to do the job properly.
First read this article:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all
I think it will paint for you a picture of a very unusual person, clearly flawed but also clearly motivated by a quest for righteousness. I think he wants to stop wars more even than he wants to release information. He is certainly not doing this for money or comfort, though I hope he eventually finds both. He wants desperately to make an impact, and he was enraged at the Guardian for wanting to release the leaks on a different schedule because he wanted to optimize the timing for the sake of maximum impact. Yeah, it was stupid to threaten to sue and claim "ownership" - but even the article says that he later backed down from this, after a great deal of coffee and wine. Haven't we all said stupid things while overworked, stressed and sleep deprived? I don't think this episode should be taken to reveal too much about Assange. The article linked above is more informative, though also not exactly flattering.
According to Wired, back in 2008 Wikileaks had a plan to sell exclusivity to certain documents to the highest bidder. These documents were embargoed, which meant eventually they'd be fully released, but until then the lucky winner would be able to report on them without competition.
Which does make me wonder about the "financial interest" angle mentioned in the Vanity Fair piece... are any of these media outlets paying for access to the current set of leaked documents?
"Instead of publishing the documents, OpenLeaks will send the leaked documents to various news entities"
on that it will never be 'Open'(hah)Leaks year
love it how Wikileaks is doing Big Media's Job and all they have time for is to try and stop him.
Maybe he needs the money now that the legal costs are mounting?
I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
The mainstream media will clarify things! The mainstream media would never lie or distort or plant stories! Never!
Wikileaks stands for the proposition that all the secrets of open governments should be laid bare for all to see while all the secrets of closed governments should remain secret.
I'm not sure that is good.
Godwin be damned but the nazi's were bitten by commies, racists, anti-semites and biggots. Yes Americans, one of them is you or do you care to explain the moral difference between "Geine Juden" and "Whites Only"? The russians is obvious and the British racial crimes are so many that god has reserved a special place in hell for them, it is called england and it is a bleak and desperate place indeed to be damned to live in.
Real heroes ain't supermen, they are people who decided to standup when most bent over and they don't always standup for purely noble reasons. Many a soldier fought for freedom but joined for the excitement. The fireman who rescues you from a burning house still cashes a paycheck and doesn't life on the adoration alone.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Are we really even considering taking those guys seriously?
It's probably all made-up.
material relating to Israel - says it all really.
> Wikileaks stands for the proposition that all the secrets of open governments should be laid bare for all to see while all the secrets of closed governments should remain secret ...
You're kidding aren't you, since when were our own fake 'open' governments really open.
If he's looking to get a profit out of these secrets and now that he has admitted it can't he be prosecuted because isn't that pretty much the same as selling secrets directly?
In the US forces, a 1st Lt is always "Mr".
At what point does the passcode get released?
Chill out, comrade.
Wikileaks existed for years before the recent news stuff. We would get documents about corruption in some African nation or Iceland's banks having scandals, etc.
OP is correct in that WL would have 50+ small leaks on their frontpage years ago when I saw it for the first time. A lot of small scandals in nations all over the world that you would kinda expect given the power of internet+citizens.
The only reason the US govt is going hardcore now compared to before was the release of classified diplomatic cables and the war diaries. Prior to this, WL did not have anything as major or significant.
OP said "Leaks happen all the time." And he is correct in his statement. If he said "Huge US govt leaks happen all the time," then you would be justified in your stupid tirade and dramafest.
Every time I post on this, I get modded toll by somebody with an agenda, but I think it's important so I try again.
Assange is a narcissist. He isn't doing anything honorable by dumping all this classified stuff. Leaking information which reveals wrongdoing is noble, wholesale dumping of classified material is chaos. Some secrets are secret for good reasons. For example:
What good comes from leaking the cables of a diplomat clandestinely investigating human rights abuses? It simultaneously gave the oppressive regime a reason to be more oppressive and the names of people to go after, but Assange knows best - people have a right to know! See WikiLeaks just made the world more repressive
How about undermining a democratic reformer in Zimbabwe? Did that do any good? I have a good friend in Zimbabwe, he's in enough danger already just for supporting the MDC. Now a cleptocratic tyrant has the excuse he needs to hold on to power, prolonging the misery of an entire country, and my friend might end up in jail, or dead. But I suppose the death and deprivation of faceless Africans won't keep Julian up at night.
Oddly, one case where Mr. Assange saw fit to withhold information was the "Collateral Murder" video. Not because it could endanger somebody, but because it didn't fit with the narrative he constructed. Rather than objectively present the video with the relevant context, he purposefully left out any mention of the convoy that was approaching or the attacks that had recently occurred that same day, implying that the helicopter was just randomly firing at a group of people. He implies that the pilot's identification of weapons was incorrect, but fails to provide a copy or even a link to the report (which was released, though names are redacted), which details fun facts like the RPGs and AKs they found on and around the "civilians". He doesn't mention that the Reuters employees had not told anyone where they were going to be, and were not wearing ANY press identification. I could go on...
The point is that Assange has always had an agenda, and it certainly isn't exposing government wrongdoing, or even presenting the uncolored, unfiltered truth (if it doesn't suit him). I don't know why so many people here idolize him.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
Well how clever is that? Newsclowns will color,edit and spin it to the enemies favor.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
> 'drinking light beer'
> prosecutable here.
I have been to .au. Your "beer" is the same horse piss as the USA's, Canada's, Asia's, and yes, Belgium's[1] and anything other large[2] brewery that is farther than 100 km from Munich. Other than that, your country is pretty nice. But claiming that your beer is anything other than flavoured, bitter water is a joke.
[1] Oh no, he didn't! Yes he did.
[2] There are nice micro-breweries in many places. I still fondly remember a honey-wheat-beer from British Columbia.
It's not the truth unless it's the whole truth.
How about this. Some guy in the US has a decent home-security system with cameras etc. He sees guys in dark clothes prowling around his house, so he grabs his (legally registered) gun and calls 9-1-1. While he's trying to get help from 9-1-1, one of the guys bursts in through a window, and he swings around and shoots the guy in the head. Since the house is wired, the security camera gets it all on tape.
Now, it turns out that the "intruder" was actually a cop, and this was a sting/bust that got the wrong address (or even the right one, but maybe without a warrant, whatever). However, what is published is that Mr Smith shot a cop, with an accompanying video of him whipping around with a gun and blowing said cop's brains out. Maybe that video is even shown to the jury when the guy gets charged.
In that case, do you think that it might be a good idea to perhaps REFUSE to show the video. How about if they only showing the video without all the other information (bad drug bust, 9-1-1 call records, etc). Still a good idea?
Maybe the information should be released, but if it's only part of the story, is it really an honest disclosure?
Vanity Fair, I do wonder how well financially their business model is doing, that "article" was based on the worst kind of journalistic bias I have read recently. It's manipulative structure was so obvious, was it written for idiots. After buttering up the audience with starry eyed stories of the Grauniad and Assange we eventually get to what they want to do. Express a bunch of opinions about Assange's character. Suggest wikileaks is no longer interesting to the public due to a lack of new leaks/funding. Spout verbatim (second hand) drivel about the quality of the Guardian and its business model from its competitors. For a balance perhaps a real journalist could mention, why the no new articles/lack of funding. US officials not using due process and making unofficial requests to private American companies to block wikileaks and donations to it. Yes Assange was put on an interpol list, is this standard procedure for people who have never been charged with anything? After all these awful Assange articles we should take a look at why Assange is constantly made the point of interest by old media news outlets and no I do not see this as his own doing. Heaven forbid we hear about the alleged originators of the frankly damning (to nearly all governments involved) info. I hear some of them are in prison and don't have the luxury of public (and I mean rank and file members of the public) campaigns to free them, they're tucked up tight by the likes of the US government who have proven happy to ignore the principle of innocent before proven guilty. Old media like pushing the Assange angle, and supposed "chaos of transparency". Remember likely whistle blowers, the chaos of wikileaks and the poor character of its founder mean you should bring your stories to the editorially sound old media, no chaos of transparency here, just the old question, will it make us enough money, or will suppression/distortion buy us enough government favour to betray journalism. Vanity Fair - your article was about as bad as I expected, you are not journalists you're barely entertainment!
1. Can we leak China's secrets? No, leaker will be shot.
2. Can we leak Iran's secrets No, leaker will be stoned.
3. Can we leak US's secrets? Yes, everybody cheers.
4. Profit!
I didn't find anything with a few cursory Google searches, but I would honestly like to see a source for that. Who is getting compensation?
As far as I have heard, the US was paying for medical treatment for the children who were hurt, which is good, but that was the extent of it. I could see them getting additional, non-medical financial compensation. Beyond that, I would be very surprised.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
(On the soldiers in the Collateral Murder video) Why do it? Well, there's two reasons. One, because it's fun to kill people, if you've been in that environment, removed from the all the effects of killing people for a long time. It's a video game and they'll get a high score. The other is, they brag, after they kill they go back to base and say "Hey, I killed thirteen today."
So in your world talking about how others can be sociopathic is evidence of ones own sociopathy? Admit it, you're butthurt because he dared to touch your precious USA, well suck it up, you're a fascistic corrupt empire which deserves to be exposed for the two-faced evil peice of shit it is.