[rael-science] Greenwald: Assange show - Kremlin propaganda? Look who’s talking!

วันอังคารที่ 24 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2555

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Raelian Movement
for those who are not afraid of the future : http://www.rael.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://rt.com/news/assange-greenwald-show-kremlin-487/

Greenwald: Assange show - Kremlin propaganda? Look who’s talking!

Published: 19 April, 2012, 21:58
Julian Assange and his crew making Episode 1 of “The World Tomorrow” show
(28.8Mb)embed video

Assange’s The World Tomorrow has created a storm in the media that has taken no time at all to accuse the Kremlin of pulling strings. But in their anti-propaganda crusade some media are blind to their own practices, notes journalist Glen Greenwald.
The founder of the WikiLeaks whistleblowing website had no illusions how his talk show would be perceived, especially with RT as the initial broadcaster. “A traitor” and “a Kremlin patsy” is what Julian Assange knew he would hear from his opponents.
This did not take too long to crystallize in a review by The New York Times’ Alessandra Stanley, who lashed out at Assange and his choice of broadcaster.
The show is unlikely to win high ratings or change many minds, but it may serve Mr. Assange’s other agenda: damage control,” writes Stanley, adding that there was something almost “atavistic” about the outlet the whistleblower picked.
Russia Today is an English-language news network created by the Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin in 2005 to promote the Kremlin line abroad… Basically, it’s an improbable platform for a man who poses as a radical left-wing whistleblower and free-speech frondeur battling the superpowers that be,” reads the NYT article.
Glen Greenwald, a prominent US journalist and contributor to the online magazine Salon, challenged this in an interview with RT.

Why such outrage?

Greenwald to RT: American media have long loathed Julian Assange since he first came on the scene. What he did – bringing about transparency – is supposed to be what they do and the way in which he did it made more scoops about the US government than all the American media outlets combined. And yet they showed their true colors leading the attack against Julian Assange for exposing the US government. 

‘Branding others as propagandistic is self-praising’

[Assange’s] reputation has taken a deep plunge since he shook the world in 2010… To some he was a hero, to others a spy, but nowadays he is most often portrayed as a nut job,” writes the New York Times.
It would be fatal to hold your breath waiting for the NYT to ever use "nut job" to describe anyone w/actual power in DC. Attacks on Assange and RT reveal much more about the critics than their targets,” remarks Greenwald to his Twitter followers.
Greenwald to RT: The fact that Assange is on RT drives American media additionally crazy. It makes them feel good to be able to point to other media outlets and say “Oh, look over there those are tools and instruments for state propaganda!” Because when they do that, they get to forget about and obscure their own role in disseminating state propaganda. Most notoriously, The New York Times did more than everybody to convince Americans of the need to attack Iraq. But even since then the model of the US media is very much to show faith and loyalty to the US government. So there is really a lot of irony and hypocrisy in this criticism.

Not too ‘cozy’ interview

The whistleblower’s first guest was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who had not given a television interview since 2006. Despite angry criticism of the show, many agreed it was a coup.
The NYT mocks Assange's new show, then adds as an afterthought that he did what US TV wouldn't do: asks his first guest adversarial questions,” wonders Greenwald in his Twitter account.
Greenwald to RT: The interview was pretty remarkable. Here’s Nasrallah, who agreed to give Assange a really big scoop. But instead of treating him with great appreciation and friendliness (the way virtually every US television personality would have done) Assange was very adversarial and aggressive in his questioning. He asked him about corruption and deceit at the highest levels of Hezbollah. He challenged him on why he wasn’t supporting the citizens in Syria who are fighting against the Assad government. It was a really adversarial and journalistically impressive interview, especially given that it was his first guest.

Assange surely ‘in bed with Kremlin’ – no, wait…

Of course, practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn’t put out,” reads the NYT article.
As RT comes with the obligatory prefix “Kremlin propaganda” at some outlets, the hot issue for many was how much of “The World Tomorrow” was written by FSB bosses and agreed with the Russian president-elect.  This is the way the channel is pictured to work.
About to go on RT to talk about media reaction to Assange's show – just got my script from Putin by email,” mocks Greenwald at Twitter.
Greenwald to RT:  Assange criticized Nasrallah for failing to support the citizens of Syria fighting against the Assad government. The Russian government has been an ally of the Assad government. So the position Assange took in his very first interview was directly contrary to the policy of the Russian government. I’d say it gives great credence to Assange’s claim of his editorial independence. It makes those claiming otherwise look like deceivers and liars. 
The rule is clear: it's OK for a journalist to work for a weapons manufacturer, the US or British govts, & Rupert Murdoch, but not RT? Assange should be judged by what he does and the journalism he produces – not where it's broadcast,” tweeted the journalist.
The US is trying to prosecute & destroy Assange – Russia gave him a show. Think about why & what that reflects,” he added.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING FROM RAEL: For those who don't use their intelligence at its
full capacity, the label "selected by RAEL" on some articles does not
mean that I agree with their content or support it. "Selected by RAEL"
means that I believe it is important for the people of this planet to
know about what people think or do, even when what they think or do is
completely stupid and against our philosophy. When I selected articles
in the past about stupid Christian fundamentalists in America praying
for rain, I am sure no Rael-Science reader was stupid enough to believe
that I was supporting praying to change the weather. So, when I select
articles which are in favor of drugs, anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, racist,
revisionist, or inciting hatred against any group or religion, or any
other stupid article, it does not mean that I support them. It just
means that it is important for all human beings to know about them.
Common sense, which is usually very good among our readers, is good
enough to understand that. When, like in the recent articles on drug
decriminalization, it is necessary to make it clearer, I add a comment,
which in this case was very clear: I support decriminalizing all drugs,
as it is stupid to throw depressed and sad people (as only depressed and
sad people use drugs) in prison and ruin their life with a criminal
record. That does not mean that there is any change to the Message which
says clearly that we must not use any drug except for medical purposes.
The same applies to the freedom of expression which must be absolute.
That does not mean again of course that I agree with anti-Jews,
anti-Semites, racists of any kind or anti-Raelians. But by knowing your
enemies or the enemies of your values, you are better equipped to fight
them. With love and respect of course, and with the wonderful sentence
of the French philosopher Voltaire in mind: "I disapprove of what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
new technologies.
 
There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history, 
it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
 
On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies
unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the
myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease,
death and the sweat of labour.
 
Rael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Tell your friends that they can subscribe to this list by sending an email to:
subscribe@rael-science.org
- - -
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
unsubscribe@rael-science.org
- - -

0 ความคิดเห็น:

แสดงความคิดเห็น

Copyright Text

WARNING FROM RAEL: For those who don't use their intelligence at its
full capacity, the label "selected by RAEL" on some articles does not
mean that I agree with their content or support it. "Selected by RAEL"
means that I believe it is important for the people of this planet to
know about what people think or do, even when what they think or do is
completely stupid and against our philosophy. When I selected articles
in the past about stupid Christian fundamentalists in America praying
for rain, I am sure no Rael-Science reader was stupid enough to
believe that I was supporting praying to change the weather. So, when
I select articles which are in favor of drugs, anti-semitic,
anti-Jewish, racist, revisionist, or inciting hatred against any group
or religion, or any other stupid article, it does not mean that I
support them. It just means that it is important for all human beings
to know about them. Common sense, which is usually very good among our
readers, is good enough to understand that. When, like in the recent
articles on drug decriminalization, it is necessary to make it
clearer, I add a comment, which in this case was very clear: I support
decriminalizing all drugs, as it is stupid to throw depressed and sad
people (as only depressed and sad people use drugs) in prison and ruin
their life with a criminal record. That does not mean that there is
any change to the Message which says clearly that we must not use any
drug except for medical purposes. The same applies to the freedom of
expression which must be absolute. That does not mean again of course
that I agree with anti-Jews, antisemites, racists of any kind or
anti-Raelians. But by knowing your enemies or the enemies of your
values, you are better equipped to fight them. With love and respect
of course, and with the wonderful sentence of the French philosopher
Voltaire in mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it".