Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ghostwriter Reveals the Secret Life of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-used-to-disappointment dept.

An anonymous reader writes "From the Telegraph, 'He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that's not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend ... A damning picture of Julian Assange ... has emerged in a detailed account by his ghostwriter. Assange behaves ... like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world. Worse still, he turns on his friends with increasing regularity ... Assange describes the Ecuadorean ambassador offering him diplomatic asylum as 'mad', 'fat' and 'ludicrous'. Even Assange's girlfriend, WikiLeaks researcher Sarah Harrison, grew increasingly frustrated at his behaviour. 'He openly chats girls up and has his hands on their a**e and goes nuts if I even talk to another guy,' she says. O'Hagan, who had hoped to find an anti-authoritarian rebel figure worthy of admiration, says he comes to regard Assange as someone who sacrificed the moral high-ground by attempting to evade trial over the rape charges.' — The Scotsman adds, 'Canongate director Jamie Byng yesterday hailed O'Hagan's account of the "impossibility of trying to ghost Assange's memoirs". He tweeted: "Andy O'Hagan's compelling, ring side account of Being (& being around) Julian Assange is smart, accurate and fair."'"

9 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. So? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:So? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.

      The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So? by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Additionally, the man is effectively in captivity under a lot of stress. That can present a very different person than that individual might be if not for being locked in the fucking embassy, for example.

    3. Re:So? by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should be more interested in WikiLeaks and their info/message, not the blonde guy at the top.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we either have to love both Assange and Wikileaks, or hate both Assange and Wikileaks?

      You can love Wikileaks and hate Assange, or love Assange and hate Wikileaks. To even bring in finer shades of grey, you can believe that Assange is probably not that nice of a person, and the Swedish investigation is legitimate, but still appreciate the effort put towards Wikileaks, and you can appreciate some of what Wikileaks has done but dislike other acts of Wikileaks.

    5. Re:So? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline.

      I disagree. While the description of Assange is obviously untrustworthy, and most likely an attempt at character assasination, it's quite newsworthy that such attempts continue. It paints a frightening picture of not Assange, but the state of our Western democracies.

      Also, Slashdot's discussion system means everyone gets to see both the reactions such a story generates, and even more importantly the moderations they receive. It is quite relevant to all of us and the future of our civilization if such sustained effort to destroy the credibility of resistance actually produces results.

      None of us knows anything about Assange from credible sources, so everyone is free to believe what they will. Thus what they choose to believe reflects their pre-existing bias, not unlike in the Zimmerman-Martin affair (where people apparently used their crystal balls to come up with ludicrously detailed blow-by-blow descriptions of what obviously must have happened). It matters little if Assange is a scoundrel, a Cape, or a mere human; but it matters a lot whether people are willing to simply take the government's word of it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. If you can't win. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't win: Ad Hominem.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  3. vain, paranoid, sexist by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could describe any number of people who are/were successful in public but had feet of clay. Rev. Martin Luther King, Pres. Bill Clinton - the list goes on and on (admittedly King wasn't necessarily paranoid, they really were out to get him).

  4. Re:shocking by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    can I have 'smear campaign' for 100, please, alex?

    we can see thru this character assasination easily enough; but the fact is, if you keep repeating lies enough, people will believe them.

    regardless, what the man has done is what matters. personality does not enter into it, not one bit.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."