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.
http://wlcentral.org/node/839
The Guardian do not have clean hands in this matter.
The AFP aren't that complex. Besides, if they were involved, any smear campaign would have been slightly different:
"Assange charged with 'being a dickhead' and 'drinking light beer'"
As such, Australia would actually have grounds to arrest him - both are prosecutable here.
I'm sorry, did somebody use the phrase "journalistic standards" and "The Guardian" in the same sentence?
"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.
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.
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.
That's the funniest thing I've heard so far this year. Congratulations!
Seriously: Could you provide even the slightest corroboration for this?
And while you're at it, I'd appreciate if you could respond to the stories floating around here lately that you're just making these accusations to draw attention away from the fact that you're a serial killer who stuffs live puppies and kittens into the gutted corpses of your victims and then burns them alive in a satanic death cult ritual.
... I'm not saying you actually did that, but now that people are talking, perhaps you could respond to the accusations.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Yeah, because principled people dine on fluffy clouds of candy floss delivered by unicorns. They don't need any of that filthy lucre! How dare that bastard defend Wikileaks' interest like any other business would? For shame!
Look: Assange is a jerk, and an angry one at that. So when he sees the Guardian positioning itself to take Wikileaks out of the decision-making process as to when and how the leaks get released, he pitches a fit. But he's also smart and technically astute, so he consults his lawyer, who tells him that in order to get an injunction stopping publication, Assange needs to demonstrate that he owns the material in question. Furthermore, he can threaten to sue for damages if he claims financial losses.
For Assange, this is a reasonable approximation of the truth, and he's willing to use that line if it will pull the Guardian back into line, so that he can coordinate the release of the US diplomatic cables across 5 different news organisations. So he storms into the Editor's office, attorney by his side, and stakes his claim.
Some of the Guardian staff, who are tired of Assange (because he's a jerk), want to tell him to go get stuffed. But the Editor sees that things could get messy. He gets everyone seated around a table and after a lot of talking (and some wine), everyone calms down.
This is one of the most mundane little bits of newsroom drama imaginable. Egos get out of line, everyone fights over the right to release, and editors do what they do, which is to herd all the cats back into line.
If anyone for a moment thinks that Assange is trying to cash in on this, they really need to learn a little about the guy. The Vanity Fair story itself says that for years he had only two outfits. He sleeps on people's couches, for heaven's sake. The guy can act like a paranoid prick, yes, but there's a hell of a lot more Stallman in him than Zuckerberg.
No, not at all. Now quick picking at the shiny bits of the story and try seeing what actually happened.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.