NYTimes On Dealings With Assange

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYTimes On Dealings With Assange

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday January 27, 2011 @03:51AM from the i-thought-he-was-a-mastermind dept.

kaapstorm found an NYT story on Assange saying "Assange slouched into The Guardian office, a day late. Schmitt took his first measure of the man who would be a large presence in our lives. 'He's tall — probably 6-foot-2 or 6-3 — and lanky, with pale skin, gray eyes and a shock of white hair that seizes your attention,' Schmitt wrote to me later. 'He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days.'"

158 of 221 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Based on the Cover..... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2011-01-27 03:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

You see? Assange is dirty and smelly; he can't be trusted! Real heroes look and smell fantastic!

--
May the Maths Be with you!
1. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Real heroes also don't rape women!
  You mean like the troops we're supposed to be supporting in flag-humping fervor?
2. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Anne_Nonymous · 2011-01-27 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Think of it as nerd street-cred.
3. Re:Based on the Cover..... by MoldySpore · 2011-01-27 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Last I checked, rape victims don't throw their attackers a party after they are raped.
  
  --
  "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
4. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Men or women, heroes or cowards all should not forcefully complete a sex act when consent has been withdrawn. This should be universally accepted but is apparently not.
5. Re:Based on the Cover..... by piripiri · 2011-01-27 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ad hominem, eh?
6. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Fibe-Piper · 2011-01-27 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Women (or should i say a normal) wouldn't consent for casual sex and claim weeks later she was rapped in a threesome with a friend.
  I don't think that's how it all happened, though I originally misread the report of his misdeeds the way you did. Apparently there was a gap in the time between his doing of the nasty with the two women; i.e. they weren't done simultaneously/in a threesome.
  
  --
  I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
7. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Schadrach · 2011-01-27 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't at least one of them have positive remarks posted online about their meeting between that night and when she met the other woman?
  You see, here's where I have trouble (and it's something I see as an innate issue with the sex crime laws in a lot of places). Prove to me that she withdrew consent during the act, and not that she withdrew consent a few days later when she met the other woman. There is no evidence that the former is true over the latter aside from her own testimony and the words of a woman who could quite possibly be having "buyer's remorse" cannot be grounds on which to punish someone in and of themselves.
  A law that in practice says "If you ever sleep with a woman, you have opened yourself up to legal punishment for the rest of your life because she might one day in the future change her mind and decide she didn't consent and her stating so is enough proof to damn you" is itself ridiculous.
8. Re:Based on the Cover..... by uberjack · 2011-01-27 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  I think if he was a servant of the enemy, he'd look fairer and feel fouler.
9. Re:Based on the Cover..... by LingNoi · 2011-01-27 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the NY Times is launching their own leaking site...
10. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-01-27 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  It's not for life
  http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sexual-assault-issues/state-statutes-of-limitations
  But you better hope you can keep them from changing their minds for 5-10 years, in the US at least. I don't know about Sweden, couldn't find anything with a quick search.
11. Re:Based on the Cover..... by poity · 2011-01-27 04:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I figured you were making a snide quip which was cool, but now that your post has been modded "+5 Insightful" I feel the need to respond, not to your comment (I have no problems with it) but to the general attitude here that would see a joke not as a joke but as an elucidation of some conspiracy by the NYT author to smear Assange.
  In an article about personal dealings with Assange and not about Wikileaks, describing the man through someone's eyes helps to ground the scene of the story, making it more vivid and engaging. Did he not appear disheveled, did he not look tired? If indeed, then it's a vivid way of describing a man who had prioritized his work above even his own hygiene and upkeep, which gives you a sense of how involved and single-minded Assange was in pursuing his ideals -- it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself. The short description can say all that without being tiresomely explicit. This kind of story-telling is what makes an article a captivating read, a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
  Just throwing some sense out hoping to dilute the deep cynicism and paranoia I see here.
  I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
12. Re:Based on the Cover..... by MoldySpore · 2011-01-27 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Experience. A close friend of mine was raped. She didn't throw a party for her attacker. The only thing she did was report it to police, who were immediately able to administer a rape kit, get samples, including semen, photos of forced entry bruising and tearing, and testified in court against him. She did not throw him a party nor did she let him stay at her place for a week after the attack.
  
  --
  "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
13. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing you didn't read the whole article? The reason they made mention of his appearance was made clear several pages in when the dirty, disheveled malcontent suddenly dyed and cut his hair and started wearing expensive suits and ties.
14. Re:Based on the Cover..... by BitHive · 2011-01-27 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  B...but knowing what we think about something without even reading about it is how we show how smart we are here on slashdot!
15. Re:Based on the Cover..... by spun · 2011-01-27 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't saying? I'll say it flat out: this has nothing to do with battered woman's syndrome, which involves a woman in a relationship with an abuser. You do not get battered woman's syndrome from a casual sexual fling or a single instance of rape. For there to be battered woman's syndrome, there also must be battering, and NOTHING in any of the reports indicates violence on Assange's part.
  I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were playing devil's advocate or trying to inform, rather than attempting a nasty slander of Assange.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
16. Re:Based on the Cover..... by spun · 2011-01-27 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  To anyone thinking it through, it implies that Assange is in fact a weirdo who does not bathe, and a dishonest manipulator who will clean himself up to make himself look better before the court. They are saying "He is not one of us. He is different, in a bad way. If he is different in this bad way, just imagine all the other bad ways he is different from us. For instance, RAPE!"
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
17. Re:Based on the Cover..... by StikyPad · 2011-01-27 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, except that's not what we're talking about here is it? We're talking about a weird Swedish law regarding sexual impropriety and you're talking about a violent rape. Intentionally muddying the waters by making disingenuous comparisons and then feigning surprise at the differing outcome isn't contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way. It is, in fact, trolling. It's a shame some of our mods can't see that.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
18. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Candid88 · 2011-01-27 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's sensationalism, and personally I can't stand it. There's no need to exaggerate every attribute when describing a person or event.
  The art of journalism is meant to revolve around giving a truthful depiction, not whichever depiction is likely to sell the most newspapers.
19. Re:Based on the Cover..... by bennomatic · 2011-01-27 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself.
  Although some other stories--like the one about him having two one-night-stands in a night--make you wonder about his priorities. And of course the extra hygiene angle, that two-bang night sounds all the more randy. Or funky. Or something.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
20. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Seekerofknowledge · 2011-01-27 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Totally unrelated to what you are saying... but here's some more nerd street-cred in the article:
  
  "They had run into a puzzling incongruity: Assange said the data included dispatches from the beginning of 2004 through the end of 2009, but the material on the spreadsheet ended abruptly in April 2009. A considerable amount of material was missing. Assange, slipping naturally into the role of office geek, explained that they had hit the limits of Excel. Open a second spreadsheet, he instructed. They did, and the rest of the data materialized — a total of 92,000 reports from the battlefields of Afghanistan. "
  Who else but a nerd would know exactly about excel's row limit. I am amused.
21. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Draek · 2011-01-27 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, we're talking about an AC's accussations stating Assange had committed rape. He didn't, end of argument.
  If you or the AC want to discuss sexual impropiety, *then* we'd look at the weird Swedish laws and the even weirder accussations leveled against Assange, but that's another subject altogether.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
22. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Locke2005 · 2011-01-27 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Not really... I hear James Bond smells like Octopussy...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
23. Re:Based on the Cover..... by MoldySpore · 2011-01-27 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  You saying he has raped women when he has only been ACCUSED and NOT CONVICTED of rape is what is "muddying the waters".. Innocent until proven guilty buddy. Spewing diarrhea of the keyboard and saying he has already raped women is exactly the kind of guilty before proven innocent trash talk that has dirtied this whole situation. You call my response a troll? I call it supporting fair trial and justice. Until there is a sentence, you don't know anything more than anyone else. Sorry if you can't see this from the top of your soap box, trying to get +5 comments from reactionary /. modders.
  
  --
  "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
24. Re:Based on the Cover..... by houghi · 2011-01-27 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And the real reason is here: http://houghi.org/Fun/4L3O6E9.jpg
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
25. Re:Based on the Cover..... by StikyPad · 2011-01-27 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying anything about whether he's innocent or guilty. The issue here is that he's not being accused of RAPE by western definitions, and therefore your assertions about the behavior of the women involved (while specious and presumptive to begin with) is completely irrelevant. If you don't grasp that then I was giving you too much credit by calling you a troll, and so I apologize.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
26. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Baseclass · 2011-01-27 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I covertly record all of my sexual encounters.
  Just in case I have to prove one day that she was actually enjoying herself.
  
  --
  ^^vv<><>BA
27. Re:Based on the Cover..... by ojak · 2011-01-27 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  "But then I cleaned Assange up with a credit-card fluffed gallivant down Rodeo Drive, allowing him to spend an obscene sum of my money on clothes, leaving me to go back to the drudgery of my work as he transformed from out-of-place hooker to silently virile gentleman. Assange went back to the shop where he was refused service from the previous day to show the shopkeepers the big mistake they made! Then back at hotel, Assange finally looked like a genuine guest, pleasantly surprising the suspicious, yet good-natured hotel manager. But when I got home I was still busy with work weighing on my mind. Assange tenderly soothed my heavy state with a magical bath together, allowing us to talk and talk into the night about our pasts, dreams, and how we ended up where we are today.
  It was a seemingly perfect, uncomplicated story of love and longing until my short, balding, self-absorbed business partner made him feel like a whore again... I'm sorry Julian. I'm sorry."
28. Re:Based on the Cover..... by drinkypoo · 2011-01-27 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were playing devil's advocate or trying to inform, rather than attempting a nasty slander of Assange.
  I'd hope my posting history would get me that much.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
29. Re:Based on the Cover..... by MoldySpore · 2011-01-27 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Your Quote: "Real heroes also don't rape women!"
  That is what we call a poor attempt to get a reaction out of modders here. If it weren't, then all this crap you have tried to use to prove my analysis wrong would have been contained in the initial post. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
  The actions of the women are NOT irrelevant by any means. If there were ANY wrong doing on the part of Assange in these cases, what woman waits a week and continues living with the guy, throws him a party, then after he leaves the country goes to the police? Regardless of their motives, what really happened, and what the Swedish definition of "rape" is, blah blah blah, what they did is reprehensible at best. And you coming in here and saying "Real heroes also don't rape women" basically says "He raped women". Are you Swedish? If you live in Sweden and grew up Swedish, then I apologize and understand your definition is different than ours for "rape". If, however, you aren't from Sweden, which I doubt you are since you would have brought it up already, then you are just an ass. Anyone from western or non-Swedish descent will view your comment the same way: in Western terms of the definition of rape.
  
  --
  "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
30. Re:Based on the Cover..... by spun · 2011-01-27 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, sorry, didn't see your nick at first. This topic just gets me pissed off for some reason.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
31. Re:Based on the Cover..... by drinkypoo · 2011-01-27 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Me too! I just don't want to trivialize rape when it actually occurs.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
32. Re:Based on the Cover..... by mapkinase · 2011-01-27 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  That's how many "personal" stories get published: looks are in the first place.
  Actually, it's a basic human decency not to pay attention to the secondary (in this case, irrelevant to the story of how nihilism of world diplomacy works, how it became exposed and how TPTB are after the man in the center of this) drawbacks of the character and the GP was making a joke elucidating the dirty tricks of NYT.
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
33. Re:Based on the Cover..... by ShakaUVM · 2011-01-27 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  >>It's sensationalism, and personally I can't stand it. There's no need to exaggerate every attribute when describing a person or event.
  Perhaps the simplest explanation is that he really did dress like a slob and smell bad.
  Lord knows this describes enough nerds.
34. Re:Based on the Cover..... by rhizome · 2011-01-27 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Although some other stories--like the one about him having two one-night-stands in a night--make you wonder about his priorities
  Jealous much? This kind of thing is not uncommon, you know, and rarely-if-ever impinges on a person's politics. Why should Assange be treated differently?
  
  --
  When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
35. Re:Based on the Cover..... by bberens · 2011-01-27 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the NYT, which is in the process of making their own wikileaks type site has no reason to portray Assange in any particular light.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
36. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-01-27 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.
  Agreed, the article is well worth the time to read in entirety.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
37. Re:Based on the Cover..... by inpher · 2011-01-27 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  To me it carries a meaning that he is human, he changes when extraordinary things happen. Most people change some when they go from being known within a small circle and over the course of a few days becomes a world-known celebrity. It tells me that he was once not unlike me (sometimes forgetting or not taking the time to shower) and now dresses the part of face of a respected organization.
  I see nothing wrong in dedicating two paragraphs of a nine page article to the transformation of the head of the organization that everyone spoke of 2010 (and still does).
38. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-01-27 08:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
  It seems you missed the earlier sentence, the one that says he "slouched into the office" and looked like "a bag lady." Both of those comparisons are explicitly uncomplimentary. I read the entire article when it was first published and what I took away from it was a writer who has some personal issues with Assange trying his damndest to wrap up his insults in a thin veneer of professional neutrality and wordsmithing.
  For example, he took a shot at Assange for describing wikileak's goal as "scientific journalism" - which is the term wikileaks has been using for the practice of providing all source materials for a story to the reader along with the story itself. The writer hand-waved that the the NYT has been doing just that for years now, when as reader of the NYT online for years now, I can't recall them ever providing full sources and have frequently been frustrated by their lack of any sources.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
39. Re:Based on the Cover..... by gknoy · 2011-01-27 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  TODO: Correctly identify faking. ;)
40. Re:Based on the Cover..... by gknoy · 2011-01-27 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  His point was that many people consider soldiers to be heroes, a-priori based on them having chosen to go defend our freedoms (or kill terrorists). In reality, some soldiers are heroic, many are ethical, and some are decidedly un-heroic. He was pointing out that we cannot assume that someone is a Real Hero just because they're a soldier, even if many of the soldiers _are_ worthy of our respect and accolades.
41. Re:Based on the Cover..... by sdguero · 2011-01-27 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that Keller is the definition of an elitist. While he may sound like a man of the people and a proud American with democratic ideals in that article, it is certainly in his best interest to keep fucked up things as they are. Assange represents an end to what Keller does. Big media (like Keller's paper), big government (like the last 15 white house administrations), and corporatism are all necessary to Keller's worldview and livelyhood. Hell, that article would be 2 pages long if it wasn't for the obtrusive ads but Keller and his paper have to make their money. The NYT is a public company after all...
  
  This "story" is about selling advertising and keeping the status quo. Pointing out all of Assange's vulnerabilities is part of that goal and the man's notoriety will make people read. Keller does a great job defending his position of the neutral arbitrator trying to serve his country and the American people. I'd expect arguably the top editor in the free world to be able to eloquently defend his position.
  
  Just remember that everyone has an angle, even if they don't realize it. By his nature, Bob Keller is probably writing things that fuck you over (unless you are rich) in an abstract way.
  
  Personally, I will take a imperfect freedom fighter on the lam over an elitist editor any day.
42. Re:Based on the Cover..... by 0137 · 2011-01-27 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  you're right, of course. nonetheless i think it's worthwhile to look at OP's post from a 'more personal' perspective. OP probably agrees with you after having thought about it. the comment is likely an overgeneralized reactionary response to a legitimate issue: it is practically maniacal how difficult almost everybody is making it to talk about the actual issue of publishing leaked information. the anger, though, is legitimate.
  it's our own fault; 'the media' is simply reflecting our cultural compulsion to anthropomorphize every abstract issue, and to furthermore identify that abstraction to a real person. this is just one of the more obvious consequence to how our own rationality operates with the instinctual expectation of a 'tribal' social structure. such an individual is not merely a token representing the abstraction; they inform and transform that abstraction through their actions, and culture's interpretations of those actions.
  but it fucks us doubly when in concert with mass media. anthropomorphic fallacies are one thing; it is another entirely when their respective 'gods' therein engendered are /idolized/, created incarnate in the body of a real living human. translocal issues, to say nothing of a globally distributed publishing organization, are reduced to the impolitic vagaries of their scapegoat-prophets in the village of our minds.
  of course, we can abstract ourselves. recognizing a trap is the first step in evading it. but i see so very few taking the 'high ground' here. the high ground is that, unless we can already agree on certain fundamentals at the get-go, it is useless and likely detrimental to even agree to have a discussion about both wikileaks and the albino austrian teenage computer hacker who is apparently their PR guy*.
  * some of this descriptor may not be strictly accurate: please understand that i don't give a fuck.
  which brings me, finally, to the point:
  while this article is legitimate in terms of content, the context is downright noisome. it has become a legitimate thing to do for *bill keller* to write such an article, and for *the new york times* to publish it as a feature, and for *slashdot etc* to republish it, and for perhaps for vaguely intelligent individuals to comment on that republishing... even if all these are in fact legitimate think to do, it doesn't make how we got here any less disgusting.
  we were not suddenly transported: all of these legitimacies came about from small steps of editorial imprudence. we hear about 'collateral murder'; from that we learn about wikileaks. wikileaks now becomes a thing you can talk about. mentions of the albino are kept within reasonable bounds, as properly defined through his relation to the actual story. wikileaks (or rather: the guardian, der speigel, etc) then releases the first round of cablegate. wikileaks as a topic is increased in prominence, and the albino is elevated proportionally. the news media pays due diligence, puts he-or-she-who-shall-nit-be-named on the air, where she/he/it turns out to be outspoken, self-possessed and - more importantly - polarizing.
  suddenly the net weight of a thousand minor missteps collapse on itself and tips the scale, before breaking it. the albino becomes more talked about, more known, than wikileaks. then wikileaks becomes vestigial. which is a problem, because 'wikileaks' is itself intellectually problematic, even before considering 'the actual issues'. this problem is also obvious: 'wikileaks' has yet to be properly acknowledged by /the news media/ as a /media organization/. there are no quibbles here, no blurry line: wikileaks is a news media organization; full stop.
  we are now talking about the albino as an avatar for the idea of news, the notion of 'being informed'. we have undone any remaining attachment of the 'news media' and reality by marrying it to entertainment: to /celebrity gossip/. the content of the text is now irrelevant; t
43. Re:Based on the Cover..... by jc42 · 2011-01-27 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the NYT, which is in the process of making their own wikileaks type site has no reason to portray Assange in any particular light.
  Yeah; you'd think they'd have the sense to take him on as an expert consultant. ;-)
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
44. Re:Based on the Cover..... by hubie · 2011-01-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  A real nerd wouldn't have stored it in Excel. :P
45. Re:Based on the Cover..... by spun · 2011-01-27 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, because people on both sides of the debate, fanboys and fascist authoritarian lovers, are all idiots. I've argued against both sides when they make idiotic statements, and both sides respond with vehement attack rather than reasoned debate.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
46. Re:Based on the Cover..... by sznupi · 2011-01-27 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about a weird Swedish law regarding sexual impropriety and you're talking about a violent rape. Intentionally muddying the waters...
  And yet, the headlines or news summaries almost scream "RAPE!"...don't really even try conveying "what is classified in Sweden also under that term, and doesn't quite fall under non-Swedish term"
  
  It's not only borderline slandering, it's a trivialization of actual rapes (as understood by societies of majority of news sources)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
47. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Seekerofknowledge · 2011-01-27 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  What about a nerd that has to work with journalists everyday? shudder
48. Re:Based on the Cover..... by xavdeman · 2011-01-27 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  I replied when this first showed up on Facebook... Some people should stop using straw man arguments.There is no overlap between the idiots who claim Julian is a villain (e.g. Bill O'Foxnews) and the ones saying that Mark Zuckerberg is the Man of the Year. Also, Facebook only "steals" the stuff you give to them. Google has been tracking internet users for years. Neither of these guys is a villain. One is a businessman, the other is a journalist. Some people might argue that all businessmen are villains but that is over exaggerating. Captcha: Harassed.
49. Re:Based on the Cover..... by tragedy · 2011-01-27 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  It also describes people who have been traveling and haven't had an opportunity to change and clean up before hurrying to an appointment they're already a day late for.
50. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Ocker3 · 2011-01-27 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I often get royally annoyed with many journalists who don't take the frigging time to link back to a scientist's actual work or to some more information. I used to place more faith in journalists, but these days I usually want to know more about original sources and studies to see if what they're saying is born out by the evidence.
51. Re:Based on the Cover..... by LurkerXXX · 2011-01-27 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who has tried to dump 100,000 rows into it.
52. Re:Based on the Cover..... by jc42 · 2011-01-27 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there are NYT staffers who could use advice on that subject, too.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
53. Re:Based on the Cover..... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-01-27 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  it seems you missed the part later on in the article where it describes him after the cult of celeb makeovers. the description is both first impressions and counterpoint to his later transformation to a well groomed media star.
  Oh, I got that. I also found it to be presented in the same sort of deliberately snide style: "Assange was transformed by his outlaw celebrity" and "He became a kind of cult figure for the European young and leftish" - reinforcing the common criticism that Assange is just a fame-hound. Since it seemed to be just more of the same snarkiness, I didn't think it was very standout, storytelling conceit or not.
  
  it is worth noting that "the writer" you speak of is Bill Keller, the friggin Executive Editor of the NY ... someone in a unique position to have their own opinion on the matter, agree with it or not
  I think he's also in a "unique position" to be biased since he was right there in the middle of the action - bumping egos with Assange - and thus a personification of the chinese proverb that, âoeMen in the game are blind to what men looking on see clearly.â
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
54. Re:Based on the Cover..... by bennomatic · 2011-01-27 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  All I'm suggesting is that maybe he's not being purely selfless.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by ciaran_o_riordan · 2011-01-27 03:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thanks for sticking to the important stuff!

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
1. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by inpher · 2011-01-27 04:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  NYT spent less than 0.5% of the text detailing Assange's transformation from the regular hacker attire to someone wearing formal clothes (thus making him also a human, a person, not just a source) on that and you think NYT considers that part the most important? The other 99.5% detailing the leak and relationship between NYT, Other Newspapers, Assange and The US Government are not considered important to you?
2. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  The article talks about more than Assange's clothes - but thanks for focusing on the important stuff.
3. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by irockash · 2011-01-27 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly... http://www.nytimes.com/opensecrets should be at least mentioned...
4. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by Americano · 2011-01-27 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  No, because out of 9 pages detailing the relationship and story behind how they came to be working with Wikileaks, a couple sentences describing someone's first impression of Mr. Assange is clearly the most important. I can see why the submitter would zero in on that single paragraph, rather than the other content across the other 9 pages.
5. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by Fibe-Piper · 2011-01-27 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for sticking to the important stuff!
  I don't know, if you read the article with the voice of J. Peterman (Elaine's boss from Seinfeld) it sounds vitally important!
  
  --
  I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
6. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by kevinNCSU · 2011-01-27 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  This was like 3 sentences in a 9 page article. Highlighting this section speaks volumes about the person who submitted the story to Slashdot, and not the NYT itself.
7. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by mapkinase · 2011-01-27 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the NYT article:
  
  But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.”
  
  Hasn't it been addressed already ad hominem that there was no "rocket-propelled grenade " and the object that has been carried was a camera? Did I miss something?
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
8. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, because out of 9 pages detailing the relationship and story behind how they came to be working with Wikileaks, a couple sentences describing someone's first impression of Mr. Assange is clearly the most important. I can see why the submitter would zero in on that single paragraph, rather than the other content across the other 9 pages.
  I can see how one would think think this if one was unused to reading a narrative and possessed a short attention span induced by years of sound-bites. In this day and age, we're unused to involved articles. But this one is, in fact, 9 pages of involved description of events. And just as in life - first impressions (and initial paragraphs) are not the full measure of a relationship. Of course, first impressions may set the tone of a given relationship. And I suspect that if the description of Assange was glowing, we wouldn't see mention of it. But since the description and thus over-all tone is not unwaveringly positive, we see negative reaction.
9. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  Hasn't it been addressed already ad hominem that there was no "rocket-propelled grenade " and the object that has been carried was a camera? Did I miss something?
  You missed the unedited version of the video. The edited version cuts out parts that show armed individuals within the group but goes to great detail to label the reporters (as well as to drive home how callous combat banter can be and highlight the children). You can find various places that offer some analysis of this, one of which is: http://oldbulllee.com/wikmassacre.htm
10. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by KeensMustard · 2011-01-27 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Did I miss something
  Yes, you missed the memo.
  Memos.
  Main point from memo 1: This is not an story about the murder and rape of civilians, nor about our dealings with people we claim are our allies. This is a story about Julian Assange (make sure to realise that's a foreign sounding name!). He is a traitor to his country and a terrorist! ... Whats that? Bradley? no, I don't know of anybody by that name.....
  Main point of memo 2: Well, it turns out that Assange is not even American! He fooled us by speaking english and all. Anyway that means he hates America and hates our freedoms! Luckily, because he is not an american, he doesn't enjoy any rights himself. What's that? No, I won't comment about the government covering up afghan rapes, that's not the story here.
11. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by Mana+Mana · 2011-01-27 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Damn hippies!
  Unlike you and the other uncritical fanbois I read all nine fucking pages, and I did it overnight before this fucking /. story was posted.
  Some highlights on either side of the coin:
  * "... by Justice Hugo Black 40 years ago, concurring with the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers: “The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”
  * "Max Frankel, then the Washington bureau chief, wrote in a wise affidavit filed during the Pentagon Papers case: “For the vast majority of ‘secrets,’ there has developed between the government and the press (and Congress) a rather simple rule of thumb: The government hides what it can, pleading necessity as long as it can, and the press pries out what it can, pleading a need and a right to know. Each side in this ‘game’ regularly ‘wins’ and ‘loses’ a round or two. Each fights with the weapons at its command. When the government loses a secret or two, it simply adjusts to a new reality.”
  * "By this time, The Times’s relationship with our source had gone from wary to hostile. I talked to Assange by phone a few times and heard out his complaints. He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets. “Where’s the respect?” he demanded. “Where’s the respect?” Another time he called to tell me how much he disliked our profile of Bradley Manning, the Army private suspected of being the source of WikiLeaks’s most startling revelations. The article traced Manning’s childhood as an outsider and his distress as a gay man in the military. Assange complained that we “psychologicalized” Manning and gave short shrift to his “political awakening.”
  The final straw was a front-page profile of Assange by John Burns and Ravi Somaiya, published Oct. 24, that revealed fractures within WikiLeaks, attributed by Assange’s critics to his imperious management style. Assange denounced the article to me, and in various public forums, as “a smear.”
  * Since you are so attuned to your "tendentious rubric" of the Times putative bias of his 'bad' fashion sense, the Times also serves up the opposite:
  "Assange was transformed by his outlaw celebrity. The derelict with the backpack and the sagging socks now wore his hair dyed and styled, and he favored fashionably skinny suits and ties."
  There, there now, all better?
  * "An independent journalist, Heather Brooke, had obtained material from a WikiLeaks dissident and joined in a loose alliance with The Guardian. Over the coming weeks, batches of cables would pop up in newspapers in Lebanon, Australia and Norway. David Leigh, The Guardian’s investigations editor, concluded that these rogue leaks released The Guardian from any pledge, and he gave us the cables.
  On Nov. 1, Assange and two of his lawyers burst into Alan Rusbridger’s office, furious that The Guardian was asserting greater independence and suspicious that The Times might be in possession of the embassy cables. Over the course of an eight-hour meeting, Assange intermittently raged against The Times — especially over our front-page profile — while The Guardian journalists tried to calm him. In midstorm, Rusbridger called me to report on Assange’s grievances and relay his demand for a front-page apology in The Times. Rusbridger knew that this was a nonstarter, but he was buying time for the tantrum to subside. In the end, both he and Georg Mascolo, ed
12. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by definate · 2011-01-27 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't. This is a hatchet job on Assange and WikiLeaks reputation by the NYT.
  Funnily enough, when seeing things like this, which are extreme propaganda, you feel like it must have come from government direction. Then, you see NYT saying they want to start a WikiLeaks service.
  What leaker would feel safe leaking to the NYT who has repeatedly shown bias, and possibly collusion with government.
  
  --
  This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
13. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by nuckfuts · 2011-01-27 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hasn't it been addressed already ad hominem...
  Do you mean ad infinitum?
14. Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... by FoolishOwl · 2011-01-27 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Did I miss something?
  You missed the part where the helicopter gunship opened fire on people trying to load wounded civilians in a van to get them to safety.
Who wants some hot... by Vernes · 2011-01-27 04:04 · Score: 5, Funny

...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
1. Re:Who wants some hot... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  ...character assassination!?
  Piping hot character assassination?
  Get em while they're hot!
  You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
  And so the propaganda continues. We have people portraying Assange as a "saint" and a "digital Scarlet Pimpernel", ushering in a new age of truth and transparency. But anything remotely critical of this angel of the digital age is conspiracy and character assassination. Of course, then we have those who believe Assange is demon and conspirator, worthy of political assassination - or at least ignoring a few choice laws to warrent arrest. So there's more than enough noise to go around. Thanks for contributing to the din.
2. Re:Who wants some hot... by nomadic · 2011-01-27 04:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?"
  
  No thanks, I'm all full from that piping hot uncritical hero worship fanaticism I had for breakfast.
3. Re:Who wants some hot... by spun · 2011-01-27 05:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Personally, I'm full up on all the black and white thinking.
  Guess what? There is a middle ground where Assange is not a hero, he is a human being, who does good and bad things. We can decry the rush to smear Assange without assuming he is a hero. Nothing in the post you respond to indicates hero worship, and so it really appears as though you are trying to smear all of Assange's defenders as mere unthinking "hero worshipers." Is that your intention?
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
4. Re:Who wants some hot... by lostmongoose · 2011-01-27 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even know what The Scarlet Pimpernel was about? Your literary reference-fu is weak.
5. Re:Who wants some hot... by ToasterMonkey · 2011-01-27 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  ...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
  Hey, it's the truth, and the truth is ugly. Wikileaks fans should know this. *cough*Collateral Murder*cough*
  So, cry me a river.
6. Re:Who wants some hot... by Vernes · 2011-01-27 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  He's right you know. I'm a hero worshiper and as such my opinion is moot. Although I can't for the love of me see how Jason of the Wheel warriors is related here.
7. Re:Who wants some hot... by Draek · 2011-01-27 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  You shouldn't be watching Fox News so early in the morning, you know, it's bad for your health.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
8. Re:Who wants some hot... by nomadic · 2011-01-27 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Only the "character assassination" the poster was decrying was a short reference to how Assange appeared physically. From this minor aside slashdotters rush into action to defend the man, the way they defend every single thing he does. That's mindless hero worship.
9. Re:Who wants some hot... by spun · 2011-01-27 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  No it isn't mindless hero worship, and there is no need to denigrate those you disagree with as "mindless." There is an organized campaign to discredit Assange. This reporter may not be part of that campaign, but he is doing their work for them by painting Assange as weird and different. It is entirely valid to question the motives of anyone criticizing Assange, because of the very real, very powerful campaign to discredit him. Criticizing their motives does not imply hero worship of Assange.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
10. Re:Who wants some hot... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even know what The Scarlet Pimpernel was about? Your literary reference-fu is weak.
  It's not my characterization - I'm making a reference to what others have called him. I also don't think he's an angel.
11. Re:Who wants some hot... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-01-27 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I like how all you have to do is mention Fox News with regards to a post that displays an uncharacteristic slashdot opinion to get an insightful mod these days. I'm starting to think that slashdot might be the single biggest advertisement for Fox News on the internet, considering how often it is mentioned in any story involving any controversy whatsoever.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
12. Re:Who wants some hot... by lostmongoose · 2011-01-27 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even know what The Scarlet Pimpernel was about? Your literary reference-fu is weak.
  It's not my characterization - I'm making a reference to what others have called him. I also don't think he's an angel.
  I apologize. That's just the first I've seen someone say that and it struck me as just wrong. That's....actually worse that a UK paper's 'journalist' doesn't know what the book was about, to compare the two like that. Assange would be more aptly compared to Zorro, if Zorro was a douchebag.
13. Re:Who wants some hot... by Pstrobus · 2011-01-27 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  There is an organized campaign to discredit Assange. This reporter may not be part of that campaign, but he is doing their work for them by painting Assange as weird and different. It is entirely valid to question the motives of anyone criticizing Assange, because of the very real, very powerful campaign to discredit him.
  Asserting a very powerful, organized campaign to discredit doesn't make it so either. Conspiracy is more complicated than a bunch of angry people talking big. It is also very hard to prove unless you have internal documents to demonstrate that it is happening. As these documents have not been brought forward to date, an organized campaign against Assange is only one conjecture.
  Other possibilities: Dark Forces are behind Wikileaks and want to have everyone submit their secrets to that website. What better way to catch leakers after all, than to have them leak to you? In order to raise the brand name, they have selected an earnest dupe to act as Martyr to Power and draw public sympathy.
  Or, he is a narcissist who wants everything to be about him and we are being duped into supporting him and feeding his ego.
  Or, Rather than heros or villains, dark forces or conspiracy, we actually have grandstanding noisemakers who are talking big and posturing, as often happens on playgrounds throughout the world. There is nothing organized or even all that intelligent about this, it's just another part of the ongoing mess that is life, enjoy!
  The last option won't have many fans because it means we have to put aside all the heroic meta-narratives we treasure, but it has my vote.
  
  --
  "The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
14. Re:Who wants some hot... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  That reporter isn't the only one. There's a Swedish documentary called WikiRebels (look for it on YouTube - but I suggest finding the unedited version) that repeats the characterization as well and shows an adoring fan referring to Assange as an angel (to which Assange jokingly suggests it's the hair that does it).
15. Re:Who wants some hot... by lennier · 2011-01-27 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  They seek him here, they seek him there
  Those Yankees seek him everywhere
  Is he in Sweden? Or Brisbane?
  That dashed elusive Julian.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
16. Re:Who wants some hot... by lennier · 2011-01-27 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Zorro's Guide to Swashbucking Superheroics:
  1. Create a secret identity as a dashing masked superhero
  2. Assume cover identity as a bored rich playboy
  4. Marry Catherine Zeta-Jones
  5. Snog Catherine Zeta-Jones
  6. ...
  7. ........
  8 ................
  9.... Wait, was I supposed to be saving the world or something? Ah, never mind.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
17. Re:Who wants some hot... by Ocker3 · 2011-01-27 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Check out the end of Paragraph one on page 3. They assume that strange activity (which they attribute to account hacking) in 3 people's e-mail accounts is coming from Wikileaks. So the US Intel service wouldn't want to know what these people were doing?
18. Re:Who wants some hot... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  How very droll. Sink meah if it is not so. Well done, sirah.
  </percy>
19. Re:Who wants some hot... by interkin3tic · 2011-01-27 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  ...Assange is not a hero, he is a human being who does good and bad things. We can decry the rush to smear Assange without assuming he is a hero.
  Most of my heroes are human beings who do occasionally do bad things. The only exception is Wall-E, who is a fictional robot who doesn't do anything bad. Assange can definitely be a hero and a human at the same time.
with a review THAT off-topic by v1 · 2011-01-27 04:07 · Score: 1

it really makes you wonder what "incentive" he was given, and by WHO.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by PhrostyMcByte · 2011-01-27 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  The NYTimes article is of course very well written and despite painting Assange as fairly unstable and paranoid, the events do seem believable. They aren't exactly unbiased in the matter though, so who knows who is right anymore. It doesn't really matter. This only serves to distract from what really matters: the leaked info, not the leak itself!
  wikileaks of course tweeted about it:
  
  NYTimes does another self-serving smear.Facts wrong, top to bottom.Dark day for US journalism.
2. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by nomadic · 2011-01-27 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Assange as fairly unstable and paranoid, the events do seem believable. "
  
  He IS unstable and paranoid. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not doing something worthwhile, or he has no value as a human being, but let's be honest here, he has mental issues.
3. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by TheGratefulNet · 2011-01-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  that deaf, dumb and blind media sure play a mean hardball! /sorry
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by TheRaven64 · 2011-01-27 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is Slashdot, but we don't have to bring the FSF into everything...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
5. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by MightyMartian · 2011-01-27 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I knew the US government was gunning for me, and that at least a few of its politicians wanted me lined up in front of a firing squad, I'm sure "fairly unstable and paranoid" would be among several applicable adjectives that would be applicable.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
6. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by nomadic · 2011-01-27 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, remember when the US Government assassinated Daniel Ellsberg? And that firing squad that took out Carl Bernstein? And who can forget poor Bob Woodward, taken out by a CIA hit squad in broad daylight.
7. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by drsmithy · 2011-01-27 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  He IS unstable and paranoid. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not doing something worthwhile, or he has no value as a human being, but let's be honest here, he has mental issues.
  It seems a certain level of paranoia is justified given multiple politicians in multiple countries have condoned, if not actively encouraged, violence against him. America does *not* have a good track record over the last decade or so when it comes to dealing with people it doesn't like.
  Is he likely to get taken out by a hit squad ? Highly unlikely (at least not an American one). There is certainly a non-trivial chance of him getting spirited away into one of those delightful facilities Americans seem to favour these days when they need to do some "enhanced interrogation", however, and not see the light of day again for a decade or two.
  The celebrity status he's managed to engineer over the last year or so probably offers more protection from a nasty fate than any legal system might (and is likely a large motivator for it).
8. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by gknoy · 2011-01-27 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  While many People who said Embarassing Things about the government haven't been killed, keep in mind that very recently we had a senator shot at a political rally, after having been listed as a "target" by one of the leaders of the Tea Party. I say "target" that in quotes because the icons used were crosshairs, but it wasn't a clear "Man these people should die". However, some nutjob DID interpret it that way, and people were hurt.
  If I were Assange, I'd be very afraid of similarly motivated (and insane) attackers who would act on the belief that killing him would make us safer, or avenge our national honor, or something. I doubt the CIA or any other three letter agency would have him assassinated, but never underestimate the motivated crazy person that might be out there.
9. Re:with a review THAT off-topic by hubie · 2011-01-27 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  ... keep in mind that very recently we had a senator shot at a political rally
  Actually she's on the House side, and it wasn't a political rally, but rather a meet-the-constituents on the street kind of event.
Howard Hughes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:11 · Score: 1

He sounds like a regular Howard Hughes...a man to be respected for his accomplishments.
Seems a rational description... by bjk002 · 2011-01-27 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

for a man essentially in hiding, trying to avoid being extradited to an unfriendly (to him) country, which happens to have one of the most robust intelligence arms in the world.
Can't read TFA as a NYTimes account is required to access (where are the link tags? They're too helpful to exclude in the new layout/design).
Despite your politics I think you can appreciate the gravity of such a situation and how the attributable paranoia and personal apprehension may manifest itself within an individual.

--
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
1. Re:Seems a rational description... by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-01-27 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  ...trying to avoid being extradited to an unfriendly (to him * ) country...
  * - and increasingly, damn near everyone else
2. Re:Seems a rational description... by nadaou · 2011-01-27 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  > Can't read TFA as a NYTimes account is required to access
  no, it just limits you to reading one article a day. try flushing your nytimes.com cookies and trying again or booting from a live ubuntu disc or something. it is a well written and very interesting read, and well worth a moment or two spent figuring out how to bypass the paper-thin paywall. bugmenot or a google news search for it may help as well, as may enabling "private browsing".
  usually on slashdot the forum posts are much more interesting than TFA (usually because TFA is some thin blog press release). but not in this case, this is no less than the executive editor of one of the most powerful newspapers in the world describing candidly what it was like to be the guy sitting uncomfortably between the US Govt and Assange on the bus, and where as a company and as citizens they had to compromise on both sides.
  
  --
  ~.~
  I'm a peripheral visionary.
you by unity100 · 2011-01-27 04:13 · Score: 2

successfully trolled me. im a moron who is not able to know about what rape is, in general legalese, and learn about what it is in swedish legalese, and make a distinction from common sense in between.

please, troll me again.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  the iraqi invasion is completely justified
2. Re:you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  George W. Bush is a military genius.
That pretty much describes me at times (often) by unity100 · 2011-01-27 04:18 · Score: 1

with the exception of white hair, and rolled down socks. i hate rolled down socks. and my hair is not that white yet. im sure the description fits a lot of you here much more than you want to confess.

admit it. we are becoming a new species, new generations are. even some of the old generations are among us. thats why we dont fit in with the crap of this world, watching american idol and eating grease.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by drinkypoo · 2011-01-27 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  admit it. we are becoming a new species, new generations are.
  You do not understand the meaning of the word 'species'. Do not use words you do not understand. Thank you.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by unity100 · 2011-01-27 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  "species". im becoming a new species. SPECIES !
  
  --
  Read radical news here
3. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by unity100 · 2011-01-27 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  okay.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
4. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, if you accept the "won't interbreed" definition of species then there's some truth to it.
5. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by ColdWetDog · 2011-01-27 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  You do not understand the meaning of the word 'species'.
  Well, it's rather likely he'll never be able to mate with anyone to produce viable offspring so it's probably a close enough description.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-01-27 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you're free to make your own decisions, of course, but I would wager there actually are quite a few of us here on slashdot that take pride in our personal appearances. I mean, hell, look at the sheer number of Apple fanboys on this site and then tell me that all of them go unbathed and unkempt. Sorry, the Apple religion doesn't work like that. :P
  
  But seriously, while all of us on this site are nerds, to some degree or another, some of use nerds really make this lifestyle look good. Maybe you should try it out. ;)
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
7. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by unity100 · 2011-01-27 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  if you are not going into creativity/working routines that cause you to go unbathed for days, i dont think you would classify as nerd/geek.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
8. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by gknoy · 2011-01-27 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Aha! another variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy! :)
9. Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-01-27 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Could be, or maybe you're working on a creative project to improve showers that you have to test often. =P
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Fuck 'em by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Funny that, the New York Times and The Guardian pissing on the guy doing the job they failed to do.
fuck you both. fuck you both very hard.
1. Re:Fuck 'em by Luke+has+no+name · 2011-01-27 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's EXACTLY why they'd piss on him.
  The lamestream media is angry that someone is uncovering the truth about our government.
2. Re:Fuck 'em by spun · 2011-01-27 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  More importantly, the owners of the media are angry someone is uncovering the truth about their robber-baron lifestyle. The government is just a tool, and it is really our tool, we do not have to let the rich use it against us.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
3. Re:Fuck 'em by AtlanticCarbon · 2011-01-27 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad the Times and Guardian aren't doing what Assange is doing. I don't want a news source that withholds information as leverage like Assange is trying to do.
4. Re:Fuck 'em by DWIM · 2011-01-27 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Funny that, the New York Times and The Guardian pissing on the guy doing the job they failed to do.
  You mean they failed to receive the windfall that Pfc. Manning provided Assange?
5. Re:Fuck 'em by gknoy · 2011-01-27 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  They failed to have a leaking infrastructure which open allows anyone to leak, and is perceived as having an expectation of publication. If they regularly did leak-based exposes, Manning might have gone to them first.
6. Re:Fuck 'em by darien.train · 2011-01-27 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  I don't want a news source that withholds information as leverage like Assange is trying to do.
  Do you honestly think you know enough about how major newspapers/publishing orgs operate to claim that they don't use information as leverage against competitors, it's readers or even sources?
  I think your comment shows you don't know the first thing.
  I'll give you an example: "Snow expected this weekend, stay tuned after this commercial break to find out how much and how it will effect your weekend plans."
  So the news network is willing to let you die in a snowy car crash just so that you'll watch the next set of ads. Assange defends himself from the threat of extra-legal assassination and he's an evil monster!
  Welcome to the Kool-Aid you just drank.
  
  --
  I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
missing link? by arbitraryaardvark · 2011-01-27 04:25 · Score: 1

does anyone have a link to tfa? article link is broken (not just slashdotted)
1. Re:missing link? by arbitraryaardvark · 2011-01-27 04:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all
2. Re:missing link? by Arker · 2011-01-27 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  That one is broken too.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
3. Re:missing link? by TheGratefulNet · 2011-01-27 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  still not readable
  just quote the damned thing already. fair use - fuck that!
  quote it or stop linking to the damned NYT.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
As long as we're talking about his appearance... by irockash · 2011-01-27 04:26 · Score: 2

The description in the summary is from his first meeting, before the cables were leaked.
From the article:

Assange was transformed by his outlaw celebrity. The derelict with the backpack and the sagging socks now wore his hair dyed and styled, and he favored fashionably skinny suits and ties. He became a kind of cult figure for the European young and leftish and was evidently a magnet for women.
Schmitt meet Stallman by kasper_souren · 2011-01-27 04:45 · Score: 1

Not that I read the article, but I think it's about time that Schmitt meets Stallman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles by datsa · 2011-01-27 05:08 · Score: 1

I really don't understand this attitude. Why are you assuming that everything on the web must be free? This is why your every move is tracked online, because users decided they weren't going to pay squat, so companies found other ways to make money on the net. i.e. selling your information to the highest bidder.
curiouser and curiouser. by nimbius · 2011-01-27 05:10 · Score: 1

part of me wants my hero to be fresh as a lilly, defiant as a warrior monk and rigid as an arrow in the face of his accusers and the public at large; its what ive been taught makes a hero. This juxtaposition questions my definition of hero, moreso than my conviction to assanges purpose and cause. When i watched the film "Hancock" i had no problem suspending disbelief that a homeless wino could save the day and yet now, with the very same faculty as was present in the theatre i seem to doubt assange?

Thanks to the NYT for showing me "Assange." he isnt invincible, he isnt iron clad and he certainly isnt perfect. Assange is just a guy who decided truth was important, despite some very real dangers he would face. Seeing him, socks around his ankles and all, lets me conclude that i dont care much if he's incarcerated until the clothes rot from his body. WikiLeaks was my hero the entire time, i had just applied a face to it out of convenience.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:curiouser and curiouser. by gknoy · 2011-01-27 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Heros are real people (with flaws) who choose to do something amazing, by choice or by accident, and often because they feel it's necessary or self-serving.
2. Re:curiouser and curiouser. by chargersfan420 · 2011-01-27 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, give credit where credit is due. Your hero, Wikileaks, would not exist if it weren't for Assange. To say that you wouldn't care to see him rot in a cell somewhere is a very ingrateful attitude.
  
  Secondly, heroes come in all shapes and sizes, colours, and even smells. Take the corny example of Frodo Baggins. He was neither defiant nor rigid, and he was still a hero.
Threesome? by spun · 2011-01-27 05:12 · Score: 1

I've heard this "threesome" rumor before, but as far as I know, there was no threesome. There were two women, and Assange, but the two women did not know about each other. There was no threesome. This is just a rumor meant to paint the women as slutty opportunists. I don't know whether they are telling the truth, but I know you aren't.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:NY Times is useless. A Government shill. by alva_edison · 2011-01-27 05:21 · Score: 1

No, that's the NY Post, the NY Times is the MSNBC of print.
Alternately, The Washington Times:FoxNews::Washington Post:MSNBC

--
He effected a bored affect.
Re:Prove by TaoPhoenix · 2011-01-27 05:22 · Score: 1

"Introducing the Realtime Consent Monitor!
This is a personal device worn on the body that manages one's personal space. If the user desires intimate contact, the setting would be set to 0-distance tolerated. However, if during the act she decides she no longer consents, she can toggle the setting so that further close proximity creates a warning."

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles by erroneus · 2011-01-27 05:25 · Score: 1

Firstly, it should be free because it was free from the start. It's greed and desire for control that has changed things.
Secondly, there is NO connection between whether or not something is free or not and whether or not the web and individuals are tracked in every way imaginable. If there was even some correlation, then we wouldn't see ads in magazines and we wouldn't see telecom and other businesses selling their customer databases to other companies at every opportunity. (Every time you see a "privacy agreement" that says anything about sharing with "their partners" you realize that is exactly what is happening and you are never allowed to know who these partners are because they change every time they get a new customer party interested in buying the information.)
There are simply no limits on human greed or its ability to overcome guilt, conscience, morality or even truth.
Bradley Manning is the real hero by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone seems to forget that Julian Assange is just a credit-stealing con-man.
Bradley Manning put his career, and possibly his life (if convicted of treason) at risk to collect material to expose the treachery and hypocrisy he saw within US dealings with foreign powers - especially the recent wars. Whereas Julian Assange simply put the material on a webstie, then stole all the glory.
Assange even put up a website supposedly devoted to raising money for Manning's legal defense - then kept the money.
And it is looking like the rape charges against Assange may be real.
BUT - the /. crowd likes Assange better because he adopts the costume of an anti-authority web sophisticate, whereas Manning wore a uniform.
IMHO - Assange is a sleazy narcissistic con-man, and Bradley Manning is the unsung hero of this story.
1. Re:Bradley Manning is the real hero by tunapez · 2011-01-27 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  Assange, definitely a narcissist. Con-man? Meh, I think he may be under the influence of the spotlight twinkling in his eyes coupled with the fear of certain persecution.
  Regardless of his motivation, the over-classification of all that is data to be hidden from consternation is good for nobody but the status quo.
  
  Bradley, definitely the hero. No ifs, ands or buts.
  Regardless of his motivation, the over-classification of all that is data to be hidden from consternation is good for nobody but the status quo.
  
  If I had mod points I would give you 5, AC.
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
2. Re:Bradley Manning is the real hero by darien.train · 2011-01-27 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you think Jullian Assange stole all the glory from someone who's been locked up in solitary for 7 months you're just stupid. I don't usually do Ad Hominem but in this case it seemed warranted. How much money have you donated to Manning's defense fund? How many letters have you written to your congress-critter about it? Now do some research about what Jullian and Wikileaks have done for Manning and I'm sure you'll see that your comment, while well meaning, is just stupid.
  
  --
  I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
3. Re:Bradley Manning is the real hero by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Bradley Manning put his career, and possibly his life (if convicted of treason) at risk to collect material to expose the treachery and hypocrisy he saw within US dealings with foreign powers - especially the recent wars.
  Manning is a fool who bought in on the generalized concept of "how the first world exploits the third", and then abused his access to produce a shotgun scattering of documents that fail to make the point. He put his own life and career on the line in the name of this non-accomplishment and may even have created additional dangers for potential future whistleblowers who might have something legitimate to bring to light. And while I believe Manning's intentions were honest (and am suspicious of the narcissism shown by Assange, even before these recent leaks), honest intentions do not save one from being the fool.
4. Re:Bradley Manning is the real hero by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to do it, DON'T TELL ANYONE, STUPID!
  
  Right. Because nobody else has ever thought of that before. Manning has changed the playing field for Whistleblowers everywhere.
Who wants some cool... by Vernes · 2011-01-27 05:33 · Score: 1

...counter opinions?
Smooth liquid cool counter opinions?
Soo nice and cool to go with your piping hot character assassination?
No propaganda is complete without some counter opinions to go with your character assassination!
It's got META particles to keep the propaganda going 50% longer than normal propaganda!
1. Re:Who wants some cool... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-01-27 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's got META particles to keep the propaganda going 50% longer than normal propaganda!
  You've got a wonderful future ahead of you working advertising for fast food franchises. That, or Fox News.
Ahh, character assassination by Viceroy+Potatohead · 2011-01-27 05:47 · Score: 1

That was what we were taught - the lower classes smell. And here, obviously, you are at an impassable barrier. For no feeling of like or dislike is quite so fundamentalas a physical feeling. Race hatred, religious hatred, differences of education, of temperament, of intellect, even differences of moral code, can be got over; but physical repulsion cannot.
Orwell, in The Road to Wigan Pier
1. Re:Ahh, character assassination by Locke2005 · 2011-01-27 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Americans slaves were also considered to "smell bad", by the very same people that forced them to work long hours in the hot sun, live in dirty shacks without any plumbing, and have only a single set of clothes to wear! To say nothing of denying them access to decent soap and perfume.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Obama is in Deep WTF Over Pfc Manning by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-01-27 06:01 · Score: 1

Thats a whole lot of derp right there.
Firget about the fashion section by Scrameustache · 2011-01-27 06:13 · Score: 1

By this time, The Times’s relationship with our source had gone from wary to hostile. I talked to Assange by phone a few times and heard out his complaints. He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets.

The Times is claiming that "it turned out" that Wikileaks made people targets to the Taliban?
But the Pentagon dropped that pretense back in summer 2010! What the hell, The Times?

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:difference between the nyt and real news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 06:21 · Score: 1

You might be right, but your comment isn't relevant to TFA, which is an essay to appear in the New York Times Magazine -- not exactly breaking news, but interesting in terms of the backstory of the leaks from the perspective of a journalist; one whose contacts and colleagues contextualise the Assange he got to know.
Re:NY Times is useless. A Government shill. by kenrblan · 2011-01-27 06:56 · Score: 1

Wait, I thought the Wall Street Journal and Forbes were the mouthpieces for the rich. My point is, every media outlet has a bias. Hopefully, readers can discern that and utilize multiple sources that have conflicting biases to get to the truth. Although the more troubling issue, in my estimation, is the celebrity worshiping slant that almost every media outlet in the US has. I don't want to know what the Kardashians or the cast of the Jersey Shore are doing. If I did, I would watch their reality television shows.

--
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-01-27 07:58 · Score: 1

no, I will NOT login to their stupid site.
either post a free-in-the-clear article or don't post NYT links at all. if they don't WANT to be linked to, fine.
but if they want a link, they have to cease the stupid games.
if you MUST link to nyt, at least quote enough of the text for us to get the point.
(still better to just assume NYT does not exist; that's what they basically think of us 'freeloaders')
There was no paywall or login required to view the article. Your rant is misplaced.

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
So.... by KeensMustard · 2011-01-27 08:18 · Score: 1

Is this the article where we actually discuss the things that were leaked, rather than the character of someone secondarily involved in the leaking? It would be kind of nice to hear about some prosecutions - have the people involved in the raping of that afghan boy been charged? Has the american company that procured the child - or the representatives thereof, faced justice? What about Mark Arbib? He passed on critical strategic information to the US - information that was withheld from both the parliament and the Australian people themselves. Will he be forced to resign?
Seems strange that this whole affair somehow got turned around to a discussion on the morality of Wikileaks and Julian himself, and the truly important matters are carefully left to one side.
1. Re:So.... by Ben4jammin · 2011-01-27 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, but then the question is are those items going to be considered "newsworthy" enough to get the coverage that JA got? I think probably not. That doesn't mean they won't be dealt with, just that you will have to go looking for updates rather than having it spread far and wide. Or maybe it just gets "parked" and powerful people let it gather dust until no one is looking anymore and it just goes away.
2. Re:So.... by Alerius · 2011-01-27 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You find it strange that mainstream media is more interested in attacking the easy target (and let's face it, Assange really is easy to pick on) instead of the issues that have been raised? Investigating allegations of wrong doing requires a journalist; talking about a persons dress, commenting on his alleged actions and pointing out his obvious strange mannerisms or behaviour only takes a talking head. No shortage of those around but I fear real journalists may be in shorter supply.
The Traitor is Lamo by UnixSphere · 2011-01-27 11:05 · Score: 1

Adrian betrayed them all. Script kiddies....
Realize the source of all crapola by sgt_doom · 2011-01-27 11:15 · Score: 1

You are talking about the NYT after all. Not exactly a valid source of anything reliable, after all. I mean, which rag did Dick Cheney go to when he wanted planted stories written by Judy Miller (now with a highly paid position at the Manhattan Institute, of course)?
New York Times, 'natch!
Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles by datsa · 2011-01-27 12:14 · Score: 1

No publication has any obligation to put their content online for free, is my point. Why shouldn't they control their own content? They're the ones investing in it. And charging for your product isn't greed. Something has to pay the reporters' salaries. Twenty years ago, almost no newspaper or magazine was free. So "from the start" is relative.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to paywalled content. They don't have to give anything to you for free, and you don't have to pay for it. Anything that's given away is because the market supports it being given away, not because the content provider is holding to any higher standard.
At this point, you're probably right about tracking, because most people don't care, so companies feel free to track no matter what. But my point is that the whole tracking nonsense was accelerated by "omg how are we going to make money if we give our product away for free?"