Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange To Host Talk Show
An anonymous reader writes "Julian Assange has announced he will host a talk show: 'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it,' Assange said in his announcement late Monday. 'Are we heading towards utopia or dystopia, and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.'"
Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it. Are we heading towards utopia, or dystopia and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.'
Woah, woah, woah. Way too many words. I was like "What?" and then I was like "Huh?" and then, uh, I got a little bored.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
It's sad, but my first thought about this was whether he's doing it for the money, to pay for his legal expenses.
Yes, I do absolutely consider a talkshow to be "selling out". I still consider his manifesto that lead to the creation of Wikileaks extremely interesting and insightful.
I remember watching the interview with John Pilger some time ago, Assagne is certainly a compelling speaker.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.
For the rest of us, potential win.
I would love for him to spread his perspective and morals to a larger audience, because, from what I know of him (and being under the impression of the fallacy of his alleged rape charges), he represents a truly free, government-agnostic (am I using that right?) way forward for human kind. Our governments should not do evil unto others, and that should be apparent from it's own historical evidence.
And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
In Guantanamo tonight?
People keep making those allegations about the selective releases, but the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials. They had even less resources after the bankers decided to not process the payments.
Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.
You expect people with that kind of dogma to be sensible and focus on the facts?
You must be new here.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, unlike everyone else. I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Ever since his arrest, he's pretty much had to. Unless he manages to keep some form of media focus on him, such that a significant number of people will care about what happens to him, he'll vanish overseas.
Publicity is life to him, at the moment. Given his life prior to the Bradley leaks, I'm pretty sure he's not a publicity hound.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Anyone with half a brain knew Julie was doing this for the publicity.
You mean he leveraged a sensitive issue like honesty and transparency in order to gain a platform to talk about honesty and transparency? Scoundrel! Rapscallion!
benjamin franklin had the habit of stripping naked, throwing a stool in the middle of the corridor that ran through his mansion in the upper floors, open all windows on both sides of the mansion and sit there naked in the wind.
he would get arrested for it today.
and yet, he is one of the people who gave us what we have today.
tesla hated fat people and even fired a fat assistant. he openly scolded fat people in public. for being fat or eating too much.
i can go on and on with examples from important and beneficial figures in history, who shaped this current times with their very important contributions to society. ..................
unfortunately, as of today, speaking against governments not doing stuff against their people behind their back, exposing them, has become a greater evil to face than inquisition. with inquisition at least, all the people knew that you were stirring up something that was wrong, and approved you silently. but look at this discussion now - the persons who are braving the perils of going against the very bastards doing stuff behind our back, are being villified, by LITERATE and intelligent people. ..............
i dont care about 'jerk'. what i care about is, what he is doing. something we needed, and nobody was doing it.
Read radical news here
Almost as pathetic as the slavish devotion to assassinating his character on behalf of the US government.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community.
Because he knows how to create paragraph breaks?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions.
And even that was enough for the US government to try to find ways to prosecute him and bring him under their jurisdiction, and for leading American politicians to advocate murdering him. Regardless of whether we think his work was good or bad, it obviously wasn't an easy job.
He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed.
Are you referring to the clause in the confidentiality agreement where the newspaper is liable for damages to Wikileaks if they reveal certain details in the documents? That was just to protect the leak.
The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. [...]
And yet, Wikileaks also put up the unedited version of the footage, so everyone could judge for themselves. That's more than you get from a conventional newspaper or newscast.
Ironically, Wikileaks was criticised for putting up the unedited material too, by people who claimed a "real" news outlet provided reporting, not source material, and therefore Wikileaks should not enjoy the same legal protection as a news outlet.
I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.
Nobody's that good. We're all deeply flawed, but we're all we've got.
So some people just go ahead and do it anyway, because any honest action is better than accepting the lies and deceit.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?
If Wikileaks edits their releases, they're criticised for being hypocritical and not practicing the openness they advocate. If they don't edit their releases, they're criticised for being irresponsible and releasing information that could hurt individuals. If they add their own commentary, they're criticised for promoting their own agenda. If they don't add commentary, they're criticised for not being a real news service and shouldn't enjoy the same legal protection that journalists enjoy.
And if they release both their own edited version with commentary, and the complete version without commentary (redacted to protect individuals), which they actually did, they're still criticised by people who haven't done their homework.
Do you think the military, the government, banks, and multinational corporations have the wisdom and altruism to release material that reveals their own mistakes and wrongdoings?
If not, we need organisations like Wikileaks.
I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.
It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.
They refused.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
-- Socialism is slavery.
did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.
1850.
It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA [wikipedia.org] agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.
They refused.
Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities.
Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers
Taliban courts are preparing to try and punish any Afghan informers identified in thousands of sensitive documents due for imminent release by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials.
And yet Wikileaks did in fact release materials that put the lives of informants against terrorists and human rights activists at risk, which is why Wikileaks has been criticized by both governments and human rights activists.
Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.
Sage advice. I hope you remember it when the subject isn't Julian Asange / Wikileaks and it isn't your favored ox being gored.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Because the documents were illegally obtained by an agent outside of the Wikileaks organisation, still wrongly classified, and not authorized for disclosure because of the embarrassing nature of their contents. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results of demonstrating wide-scale cover-ups of illegal acts by Coalition forces in an ongoing theatre of war. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities, especially if they are guilty of hiding the murder of civilians from the public eye.
I put it to you that the agencies contacted new the documents were going to be released anyway, and they could have done more to protect their sources by cooperating with the requests of Wikileaks (as well as many reputable news sources who agreed to help redact the documents as best as they could). In my eyes, this is just one more example of those agencies letting innocent people die because of their inadequacies or lack of culpability to the public who they are supposed to protect.
I hope your comment is modded up, so others can have input on the matter. You do have a valid opinion, and it should be discussed.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100,000,000 people.
Hummm.. Cursory research reveals, not a piece of scholarly research from Harvard, but a catalogue entry for a translation of a French book written to deceive.
Basically it says that everybody who has died in a non-capitalist country for any reason other than old age was 'murdered by communism'. And then totals those deaths up; does some 'statistics' to bump that figure even higher and presents this as a 'indisputable fact' to be regurgitated by Glenn Beck and Co..
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure.
And yet they still worked with the NYT to limit the data released.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances. The US military could have totally destroyed any city in Iraq without endangering and ground troops just like the allies did in WW2 too many allied and non-allied countries. That strategy produced a definite end to that war with no ambiguity as to who won. The Geneva convention allows for the summary execution of combatants captured on the battlefiled who are not in uniform or lack any other insignia. Goes back to WW2 for after spies. The heilopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher. The moron who actually brought childeren into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child recevied. And US medivaced the child for aid after the attack. If it had been an American child injured we would have probably seen footage of then dead childs body being mutilated and hung from a bridge for all to see.