You are implying this is a major story… it isn’t. If Assange were actually standing trial, that’s interesting. Hearing more random court proceedings of a very bizarre 10 year fiasco is not.
Everybody is a critic of what the MSM is covering. They cover what is interesting. It isn’t a giant conspiracy to explain their behavior.
This isn't a trial, it's an extradition hearing. It's not newsworthy primarily because nothing particularly surprising or interesting has happened or is likely to happen. We know what Assange is charged with and, to some extent, the nature of the evidence against him. All that remains is to wait for the decision. The trial, if there is one, is likely to get more coverage.
a simpler explanation would be that many people simply don't care that much about the Assange case at the moment, and this is just a development or such, nothing conclusive. were the case to be completely dropped in court due to this, I think it would make the news.
This was an interesting case when he was trapped in the embassy, police waited outside, and stories came out about his cat pooping everywhere. Easy to understand and fascinating to read about.
Now it is a mundane series of legal events with no final conclusion as of yet.
Even these articles that are upvoted to the front page about Assange consistently have to attack the US media to get traction on HN. It's not interesting by itself to people without them getting to be mad at the media.
It's not a sham trial; it's a political trial. Assange is technically the one on trial but he doesn't matter. The decision is made.
There's a very good reason why the media isn't covering the trial. They are the ones who are on trial by the governments. This is why 'fake news' and 'misinformation' really came to the forefront after Assange and this whole situation.
I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly any interest at all from day 1.
As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
No it is not a massive shot in the narrative at all. That Assange is imprisoned under such conditions confirms the judikative to not be as independent as some people suggest.
In detail, the ruling is pretty aweful for that matter aside from this result.
This made me realize I have heard ZERO news on Assange after his arrest, and the likelihood of him being tortured and rendered and railroaded of course means our nation (US) of laws and rights is a sham.
Don't tell me it's boring, this should be a sideshow for the media like OJ. Rape trial? Russian meddling? Little guy vs the government? International intrigue?
Crickets.
A truly independent media would be tracking his case to make sure due process is followed, but we all know what media is in the age of corporate conglomeration and oligarchy.
This is just a non-story. The guy gave testimony under oath (or signed an affadavit) and submitted it to court under penalty of perjury. Then the case was adjudicated in Assange's favor. Then months later he recants to the press. It's more likely he's lying now as PR than he was lying when his life depended on it. And his story is now completely moot since the case is over. Very few people are sufficiently interested in this story to make a big deal out of non-binding details. The case itself barely made news until it was decided.
The simple answer is that what Craig Murray was reporting about Assange was massively overblown conspiracies about every single element of the trial. The reason other reporters weren't covering to the same level of detail because "Trial continues as expected" isn't news-and there are plenty of examples of this. In the mainstream news the big revelation that someone just tangentially related to the Assange extradition hearing had come out as a liar was covered, but in the context of it not really being core to the case. In Murray's coverage you would be mislead to believe that that person was some star witness.
A Toronto newspaper has the front page story "Swedish court orders Wikileaks founder Assange detained in rape case"
"A Stockholm prosecutor started a rape investigation that was dropped by the city's chief prosecutor a day later. Ms. Ny reopened it the following week."
It seems like they are just opening and closing the same case to repeatedly bring media attention to Assange in connection with it.
Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years.
Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”.
Also he testified to one thing, waited for the case to be closed, then said something else to the media. His media statements could easily be self serving (I have no idea what his motivations are) as they are not under oath they have no bearing on the case. The case which was already adjudicated in Assange's favor. It's entirely moot.
I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else.
I agree with Media Lens:
> in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing.
Why are you ignoring “Assange lawyer says Trump offered deal to avoid extradition” and “Lawyer says Assange charged under broad, contentious US law”. Not really sure what your definition of depth is by which these add less depth than the BBC’s literally zero coverage in the last two weeks.
I agree, coverage of the Assange case is more sporadic now but a quick search of the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. If there's something to this new claim it may be in their next article about it, they seem to get back to Assange once a month or so.
Everybody is a critic of what the MSM is covering. They cover what is interesting. It isn’t a giant conspiracy to explain their behavior.
reply