Persecution of Assange: Media Analysis [Updated]
Media Analysis
[Image: by Mohamed Elmaazi. “Borrowed” from The Dissenter from their story linked in the sources].
Publication date: 2021-10-27
Updated: 2021-11-05. New sources. Richard Medhurst discusses with Kevin Gosztola the case and media response, and Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton interview Stella Moris. See sources (video).
The persecution via prosecution of Julian Assange, and by extension the continuation of the USA Dept. of Justice attack on whistleblowers, journalists and a publisher hit the UK's High Court on 2021-10-27 with the court hearing the USA's appeal to the denial of extradition handed down back on January 4th.
Reportedly, attending court was less challenging than during the September 2020 hearing in Judge Baraitser's Magistrate court at the Old Bailey. The now extended case is the most significant press freedom case, from a USA perspective, since the New York Times and other outlets including the Washington Post were prosecuted for publishing excepts of the "Pentagon Papers" leaked by Daniel Elsberg. We could thus, given less restriction and the significance expect to find reports of what happened.
The first of the expected two days of the court proceedings was largely given to the prosecution to lay out its arguments for the appeal, with a half an hour at the end of the day given to the defence to provide initial rebuttal. The defense will have the majority of day two to continue its rebuttal in detail. The USA is represented by James Lewis QC of the British Crown Prosecution Service which is funded by British tax payers. Mr Assange has a legal team which was lead in court by Edward Fitzgerald QC and is funded by supporters of Mr Assange and by implication press freedom. Many of these supporters are British who thus, paradoxically, are funding directly and indirectly both sides of the proceedings.
In the lead up to the day's events, the USA had lodged its appeal and the grounds for the appeal needed to be established. The USA submitted 5 grounds, and 3 were initially accepted. This was reviewed and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde accepted the two initially excluded grounds. In a somewhat strange turn of events, Holroyde was assigned to hear the case in the High Court. Joining him on the bench is the Baron of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice Ian Duncan Burnett who also oversaw the case of Lauri Love in which extradition was rejected. There are some similarities as the Love extradition was rejected on medical grounds.
The core parties to the case, the media notwithstanding, are the USA and the UK whose extradition treaty is under consideration, but also Australia whose citizen is at the core of the case. Thus, it seems relevant to ask what media coverage was given to the first of the two days by relevant publications in those countries.
A quick media review shows that there is no article on the first day's proceedings to be found for the BBC, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), either of the dominant broadsheets for the two most populated cities in Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, or the New York Times. This is, however, a dubious short article (512 words) at the Washington Post. So, of these six major publications involving thousands of journalists we have one article.
If one looks at the independent media one sees a very different result. For Consortium News, two articles and one 35 minute video were produced. For The Dissenter/Shadowproof, day long live tweeting of the events in court, an article and a 45 minute video were provided. For Richard Medhurst, very detailed whole day live tweeting of the events in court, a 3 minute interview for RT and his own 2 hour live stream occurred. All of these are linked under Sources, below.
Compared to the one article from thousands of journalists about a media freedom case by “old’ media, we have 3 video pieces and 3 articles and two "all day" live tweet feeds from five people: Joe Lauria, Cathy Vogan (Consortium News), Kevin Gosztola and Mohamed Elmaazi (The Dissenter/Shadowproof), and Richard Medhust.
There are, of course, other sources out there. Caitlin Johnstone (independent) has an article, and so does at least The Sun (UK, commercial) which includes a 4 minute video. The point here is that two national news publishers and four major commercial news publishers with thousands of journalists from countries directly involved in the proceeding of the arguably most important media freedom case in half a century are put to shame by checking just three independent media outlets which used just four journalists and one video producer.
It is easier for the Independent Media to speak truth than for the Aligned media to pass through the Overton Window
To really rub it in, the one article by WaPo is so brief that it could not provide context, and its "mealy mouthed" summaries make it misleading and contorted. There is also an error which relates to the contortion. The error is:
Federal prosecutors want him flown to Northern Virginia to face 18 charges of violation of the Espionage Act, which could lead to a life sentence if he were convicted.
Wrong. There are 17 charges under the Espionage Act, and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Hey, WaPo, if you’re reading, the CFAA charge is “COUNT 2”. See page 30 of the second superceding indictment (linked above). To translate “18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(l) and 1030(c)(l)(A)” into an “Act” just use DuckDuckGo’s search. The top link will be to www.law.cornell.edu which provides an excellent service for us non-lawyers. The “code” title provides a strong hint “Fraud and related activity in connection with computers”.
Why would they obfuscate the CFAA charge? Oh, that's right, that investigative piece from Stundin (Iceland) a few months back that showed that the CFAA charge is based on the lies of con man and convicted pedophile. It is this charge which enables the "is not a journalist" narrative because all of the rest are about obtaining, possessing or publishing classified information.
The contortion is:
The WikiLeaks founder’s defense team and supporters say he acted as an investigative journalist when he obtained and released diplomatic cables and military reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. prosecutors say Assange crossed the line from publisher to co-conspirator.
You can't lump together a legal defense team and a bunch of civil supporters and then claim they speak as one. They “say he acted …”. This is palpably false. Just from the “supporters” side you’ll find at least three different perspectives. Some care a little about media freedom, but see the persecution and are more concerned about injustice than anything else. For them, its a human rights issue. Some are advocates of press freedom and will resolutely declare that Assange is a journalist and publisher and imprisoning people for speaking truth undermines the fundamental values of our post Enlightenment societies. Another set will look at the power structure angle and say all of the above is true. The dude is getting screwed by international abuse of national legal systems because of various power factions, being enabled by weak clauses in the Extradition Treaty created after the Global War Of Terror. And that’s just SOME the “supporters”.
The legal team you can quote from court records, or their spoken words to the media. Have fun with that, because being active case lawyers they will have been VERY careful about what they have said.
Finally, your “crossed the line” sentence is stenographic misdirection. As above, you are not quoting anyone, but “summarizing” for us poor little plebs. This is a throw away line of opinion, with no argument for it and no facts to back it up. What does it even mean? Is this akin to the Washington Post publishing a piece quoting anonymous officials which it then corrects or retracts because a week or so later observed and published facts prove that the official was lying? Publisher to co-conspirator, indeed, but for you, in the reverse direction. Data shows us that this is a problem for you, but not WikiLeaks.
This is the quality of the single piece from the major old media.
Do the research, study the judgement, register for the court livestream …
The independent media are having no trouble whatsoever reporting. But, the establishment media either can't, or have to twist themselves to not offend.
There is a hidden irony too. No doubt many journalists at the six “old” media organizations I examined will be interested in the case. It is to the independent media that they will need to go to find out what happened!
Afterword
There is another independent media source I would have checked, Craig Murray. But, the UK government has put him in gaol for reporting on a court case, the attempted political repression of Alex Salmond via failed allegations of sexual impropriety. The first ever contempt of court conviction for “jigsaw identification” saw not a “usual” sentence (fine, or whatever) but 8 months of incarceration. You are not forgotten, former Ambassador, and the first torture whistleblower, Mr Murray.
Sources for what happened in the Court on Day 1
Commercial and National
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian government publisher), none
Sydney Morning Herald (largest commercial broadsheet in Sydney), none
The Age (largest commercial broadsheet in Melbourne), none
The New York Times, none
The BBC, none
Washington Post, yes, but poor
"U.S. challenges British court ruling not to extradite WikiLeaks’ Assange", William Booth and Ellen Francis, Washington Post, 2021-10-27
Independent Media
Consortium News
DAY ONE: US Lays Out Appeal Against Assange Judgement, Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 2021-10-27
DAY ONE: Assange Lawyer in Fiery Rebuttal at Day’s Conclusion, Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 2021-10-27
WATCH: CN Video Report Assange Hearing Day One, Joe Lauria (and I assume Cathy Vogan for video production), Consortium News, 2021-10-27
Richard Medhurst
BREAKING: Julian Assange High Court Appeal: DAY 1, Richard Medhurst, (his channel), 2021-10-27
The full day 1 tweets for Medhurst (thank, Richard)
Kevin Gosztola and Mohamed Elmaazi / The Dissenter
Appeal Hearing: Prosecutor Attacks Judge's Decision, Which Blocked US From Extraditing Assange, Kevin Gosztola and Mohamed Elmaazi, 2021-10-27
US Government's Appeal Hearing In Assange Extradition Case: Day 1, Kevin Gosztola, ShadowProof, 2021-10-27
The full day 1 tweets for Gosztola (thank, Kevin)
Sources not about Day 1
Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment, Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexandersson and Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson, Studin, 2021-6-26
Kevin Gosztola and Richard Medhurst Discuss Covering the Assange Case, Richard Medhurst and Kevin Gosztola, Richard Medhust’s youtube channel, 2021-11-04
Julian Assange's fiancée Stella Moris on dangers of US extradition case, Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton interview Stella Moris, Moderate Rebels/The Grayzone, 2021-11-04
Culture
Mind Games, John Lennon, Published by Apple Records (single), 1973
Culture is worth money. Pony up, peeps.
Do Not Subscribe: This blog does not and will not ever issue "notifications". Do not "subscribe", it wont help. Use RSS. The URL is the obvious: https://yesxorno.substack.com/feed .
If you like what you read here then thank the author by sharing it.
Copyright and Licensing
This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode