Assange on the Defensive

Assange on the Defensive
Posted By Rich Trzupek On December 8, 2010 @ 12:45 am In FrontPage | 13 Comments
Alleged sex offender and world-class narcissist Julian Assange coined a phrase to describe the practice of accepting and publishing stolen documents that puts lives in danger and threatens national security: “scientific journalism.” Having made enemies from Washington to Moscow and beyond, Assange is now in full martyr mode, portraying himself and his pals at WikiLeaks as crusaders courageously trying to make the world a better place by delivering facts into the hands of ordinary people like you and me. Here’s how Assange described his brand of “journalism” in an op-ed piece published in The Australian [1] yesterday entitled “Don’t Shoot the Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths”:
WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?
Even if we were to ignore the propriety of publishing illegally-obtained documents and the morality of putting lives at risk in the name of a twisted form of journalistic purity, Assange’s arguments still don’t hold up. Any time a journalist or a media outlet obtains information, it has to make editorial decisions about how to use that information. What stories do you highlight, and which get less attention? What context do you provide and who provides it? Where do you try to focus your audience’s attention? Like every other media outlet, WikiLeaks has to make such decisions; decisions which inevitably involve the prejudices, judgment and knowledge-base of the editors who make them. The proposition that WikiLeaks is simply a resource for those interested in the truth does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
WikiLeaks says that it obtained more than 250,000 State Department cables, for example. Did it simply release all of those documents and allow its readers to figure out who was reporting the news accurately? Of course not. Had it done so, the deluge of information would have been too great for anyone to comprehend. Instead, WikiLeaks did what journalists do: Assange and his cronies made editorial decisions based on which cables, in their judgment, would have the most impact and create the biggest buzz. They provided trusted partners like The New York Times and The Guardian with selected cables that would create blazing headlines. They decided which cables to release at their own site and they offered commentary intended to steer their readers in a particular direction when those readers digested the contents. Assange doesn’t want his followers to judge for themselves, he rather wants them to agree with Julian Assange’s judgment and offer him a deafening round of applause.

In what was perhaps the most egregious example of Assange’s editorial bias, WikiLeaks’ prejudices and duplicity were on full display in the video “Collateral Murder.” Having obtained raw video of an engagement between a US Army Apache helicopter and Iraqi insurgents, Assange didn’t simply air the raw video as received and let the viewer “judge for themselves.” Instead, as a story in The New Yorker detailed [2], Assange and his cronies spent hour upon hour going over the grainy black and white footage, deciding which portions to publish, which to discard and how to best explain what the edited footage they would release meant, in order to deliver the message they preferred. At no point did they consult with anyone [3] who has been in combat, in order to understand the context of the engagement or how it would have looked to the crew of the Apache [4]. Indeed, the title for the video they chose presupposes a conclusion. Huddled in their hideout in Iceland, the last thing Assange and his pals wanted was for viewers to evaluate the veracity of WikiLeaks’ claims. They rather put in long hours of work in order to ensure that they produced a product that would be fully consistent with their worldview.


Thus, it’s clear that WikiLeaks is not what Assange says it is. But, what if there were such a clearinghouse of information that made secrets available without editorial prejudice or leading commentary? Would such an unbiased source of “the truth” truly be a good thing for the world? Though Assange clearly will never come to grips with the difference, there are secrets that are tucked away in the name of good and there are secrets that are cloaked to protect that which is evil. Assange neatly sidesteps the distinction by falling back upon the crutch of moral relativism. Good and evil are murky concepts to the Australian, so he’ll reveal all he can and let the world sort it out.
If we follow Assange’s logic to its tortuous conclusion, it would have been perfectly fine for the press to reveal that we had broken Japanese and German codes during World War II. It is universally acknowledged today that MAGIC, the crack of certain high-level Japanese codes, and ULTRA, which got the Allies access to Germany’s secret ENIGMA messages, were of vital importance during the war. Without MAGIC and ENIGMA, World War II would have stretched on far longer and many more lives would have been lost. Yet, according to Julian Assange, it would have been the media’s obligation to reveal the existence of MAGIC and ENIGMA if the World War II equivalent of Pfc. Bradley Manning had revealed the programs.
Assange may not realize it, but the world is once again at war; a war between the principles of freedom and self-determination and that of religious tyranny. In this war, the support of allies who teeter on the edge of the conflict is of vital importance to the future of the free world. Thus, when nations like Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia agree to quietly help the West battle the fanatics – even if they don’t have the courage to do so publicly – it is a very good thing. When WikiLeaks undermines their positions by releasing sensitive information, then Assange’s organization lends aid and comfort to our enemies, simply by attacking the fragile foundations of our shaky alliances with tenuous Arab partners. Are nations like Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia real allies? Not really. But they have been invaluable resources, at least until Assange and his fellow glory-seekers stepped in to make them retreat even further into the shadows.
Julian Assange’s professed ideal – a bright world empowered by the light of truth – is nothing but a shabby ruse. In the pursuit of personal aggrandizement, Assange has lent invaluable aid and comfort to the enemies of the free democratic institutions that he purports to protect. Assange faces trial over alleged sex offences. The truth of these allegations have yet to be proven. But, whatever the outcome, Assange is surely guilty of violating a far more serious statute that is only enforceable in the context of an ancient Greek tragedy: the sin of hubris. For that transgression, Julian Assange surely deserves life without parole.

ObamaCare: FDA to Cut Off 17,000 Women from Lifesaving Drug

ObamaCare: FDA to Cut Off 17,000 Women from Lifesaving Drug

December 9th, 2010

Obama’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is due to take up the case   of Avastin, a cancer drug that successfully treats some 17,000 women   annually. With a coming December 17 decision, the FDA seems poised to   take this drug away from these patients quite despite the fact that   their doctors find the drug effective.

The most dangerous period of time in Washington D.C. is that time we   call the lame duck session (I call it the zombie congress; dead men   walking). It is that time when those elected officials that are about to   be ingloriously shipped off home for the last time due to losing   election results make a mad scramble to grab for as much as they can   get.

In the case of regulatory agencies like the FDA the lame duck session   is not treated in exactly the same manner, but it is sure that when   congress is about to have its majority party change over with the   president’s party on the losing side of the switch, regulatory agencies   often try to push through favored policies before the new congress is   seated and before that new congress is in a position to put any pressure   on those agencies to prevent them from pushing the president’s agenda.

Read more.