Assange: Calls ABC Reporter a 'Tabloid Schmuck' & Exits Interview
Posted Dec 19, 2010, 12:31 AM UTC
1.9K1.1K
"Reporters" don't ask questions anymore, they just make outrageous statements and hope for an outburst.
562
Sadly, news today goes for entertainment value rather than information that is important. Unfortunately, that seems to be enough for most people.
170
"Sadly, news today goes for entertainment value rather than information that is important. Unfortunately, that seems to be what most people prefer." - FIFY
62
"Sadly, news today goes for entertainment value rather than information that is important. Unfortunately, that seems to be what most people are attracted to, emotional content, not informational." - FIFY
Attraction isn't a choice.
24
Interestingly, they also brainwash people into saying shit like "I feel" instead of " I think" because thinking people are offensive and won't be listened to but fewwings are subjective and can't be wrong. "Nobody can question your fewwings". I shit all over that thought censorship. It does have an interesting juxtapostion to the "infotainment" "news media" though.
2
Whether one acts on emotions or logic is.
2
David DeAngelo?
1
I do say, this has been, as it is, for mellenia. Only today is the deception all the more clear due to the 'information highway.' I do say, many pardons if that term be now so antiquated.
0
"Tsssk, yo dawg. When dit dis knews shiz get all Jerry Springer?" - FIFY
-3
It's really sad, but I truly believe the average adult human being (this probably includes us as well) is a complete idiot.
This is high school level gossip and the average adult loves it.
5
There is a reason we call them formative years.
1
Yeah well the average adult is a complete idiot. "and her'se a presdint u'z kin have beer with " CNN
1
Well, it made the front page of reddit.
19
Whooosh
-2
Whooosh.
It's whoooshes all the way down.
6
The problem with it is that Fox News does have the higheset number of viewers and ad rates and thus profit are set based on viewers. So CNN decides to prostrate itself to partisan elements in an effort to increase profitability, not truthful objectivity.
What is sad is that it is marketing to the lowest common denominator that happens to be the most prevalent.
4
That's capitalism! :D
6
Sadly, journalism is supposed to be "the fourth estate" the unspoken fourth branch of government. When a journalism organization says: lets melt together journalism and opinion sufficiently that people can't tell the difference, well that's like having blackwater be your police force (like they did during Katrina). Shit goes bad then.
3
Ow my balls!
2
Highest number of viewers... amongst the cable news networks. I believe that all their numbers are still dwarfed by the viewership of the nightly broadcast network news. Not to mention the local news.
1
Yes, great. Unfortunately, Fox 5 Wisconsin doesn't really have a white house press corp member.
National politics is channeled through the major carriers and their news networks, either a) a national paper or b) a national news network.
But your point is well taken.
1
At the same time, this is a very highly voted submission on reddit. You can accuse CNN of going for sensationalism to win viewers, but it seems to be what even a pretty heavily anti-MSM group (i.e., reddit) go for sensationalism/entertainment value themselves.
1
That effect is clearly visible on Reddit's front page. Circlejerk is steadily taking over the hivemind's attention.
-3
That's the new "reporting"...just talk about how "people" are saying "something" and then get some reaction.
"Julian, some people have said that you kidnapped a little girl and then raped her with that dickknife from Se7en, then buried her at Windsor Castle, but then she came back and forgave you, and now you're married to her ghost. What do you say to these accusations?"
"Some people" are, inevitably, cable news hacks. Fucking feedback loop. I think Jon Stewart has gone on about this several times. It's sad.
35
Fucking feedback loop.
That's fucking libel. Fix your laws. Or courts. Preferably, both.
1
[deleted]
-5
Oh, it's in the police report, eh? The police report, in this case, is nothing more than the "official" filing of accusations by one party against another, as there appears to be no actual evidence outside of those accusations. Assange has unequivocally denied these charges already, publicly. So, right now, it's her word against his. What the fuck is the reporter trying to accomplish here? What part of "I deny these accusations" is so hard to understand? I'm not saying he's necessarily telling the truth or lying, but this has been rehashed enough already that the reporter knows, without a shred of doubt, that he's not going to get anything new by bringing up the specificity of the charges in an interview, and instead is just trying to get a rise or provoke some kind of impassioned response that he can then edit liberally and put on his crappy 'news' show. This isn't about Julian Assange. I frankly don't care about him personally, and if the charges against him are true, then he should be punished for them. But that doesn't change the fact that the reporter knew exactly what he was doing...the same hackish bullshit "journalism" that the National Inquirer is built on.
2
[deleted]
0
What's your bone dew with Assange brah? Don't you spread a bitch's legs before you dick her? Or do you just like .... slither your way in.
1
[deleted]
1
what actually happened
That, sure. But where do you get the idea that he actually is reporting that? I.e. [citations needed]
If he was referring to the police report he would have said so, no? But he apparently has no access to that, he only said he was at the court (which can only mean the bail hearing) and someone said this - if it was the attorney, judge or the accusers, he would have said so, no? Sounds like a random person there said it, random persons say a lot of nonsense.
1
[deleted]
1
Best reality show idea yet.
11
Howard Stern IS... Detective Fuckmouth.
18
That's pretty much the whole basis of his old Stuttering John interviews.
1
Nope, Prison Break has that covered.
1
This used to be fiction. I haven't felt so for many years.
2
The question to ask now is "Why"? Why, because that's what the general public wants...
1
Infotainment!
1
If you're a reporter and the intro into your question is "I have to ask you about this", then you probably shouldn't ask it. That's the dead give away.
0
this isn't an "outrageous statement," it's taken pretty much straight from the reports filed by the women in the case. it's been posted elsewhere in this thread, but here.
0
Link doesn't work.
1
He was asking if the detailed allegations were true or not? it is what it is. Assange is an arrogant douche.
-1
From all we know these weren't the "detailed allegations", otherwise the "reporter" would have called them that - what he said was some random person at or around the courthouse said these things.
1
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin calls reporter 'tabloid schmuck' and reddit loves reporter. How is asking about the charges outrageous?
-1
that was a specific question.
-1
exactly! have an upvote :) coz i feel especially nice today
-1
The guy is accused of rape. The reporter is asking a question about the accusation. I can understand him not wanting to answer it, but there is no reason that the reporter cannot or should not question him on it. How is it unfair to ask an accused rapist about the accusations? That seems like the exact thing a reporter should ask in an interview. They should not ask only things the interviewee wants to be asked. For someone who says he is a journalist he should understand just because a question is uncomfortable that does not make it unreasonable.
-5
SO tell me, when did you stop beating your wife ?
19
I haven't been charged with that, if I had that would be a fair question.
-4
So, why weren't you charged for beating your wife?
7
He was not charged with rape btw. He is being summoned as a material witness.
6
It's not about what he asked, it's about how he asked it.
5
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
-26
Have you watched any American network television news in the last 8 years? I would say his statement, while a blanket one which doesn't apply to absolutely every reporter, is pretty well evidenced for most cases.
6
Your pantomime indignation is so typical of Rod Blagojevich, I had to laugh. That was awesome.
2
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
448
Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?
122
Who said that?! Who the fuck said that?
78
"Who's the slimy little communist shit, twinkle-toed cocksucker down here who just signed his own death warrant?
59
Nobody, huh? The fairy fuckin' godmother said it.
29
speaking of twinkle-toed cocksuckers, does anyone know the name of the reporter? I'd like to send him hate mail
19
Nobody, huh? The fairy fucking godmother said it. Out-fucking-standing. I will PT you all until you fucking DIE! I'll PT you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk!
12
Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister!
3
John Wayne was a Nazi
He liked to play SS
Kept a picture of Apolph,
Tucked in his cowboy vest
Sure he would string up your mother
Sure he would torture your pa
Sure he would march you up to the wall
Sure he would hang you by your last ball
He was a Nazi
But not anymore
He was a Nazi
Life evens the score
John Wayne slaughtered our Indian brothers
Burned their villages and raped their mothers
Now he has given them the white man's lord
Live by this, or die by the sword
6
[deleted]
1
well thats just re-goddamn-diculous
1
Fill your hand's, you sunuvabitch
1
What would Julian Assange do
If he was here right now,
He'd make a plan
And he'd follow through,
That's what Julian Assange'd do.
When Julian Assange was in the olympics,
Skating for the gold,
He did two salchows and a triple lutz,
While wearing a blind fold.
When Julian Assange was in the alps,
Fighting grizzly bears,
He used his magical fire breath,
And saved the maidens fair.
So what would Julian Assange do
If he were here today,
I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two,
That's what Julian Assange'd do.
I want this V-chip out of me,
It has stunted my vo-ca-bu-lar-y.
And I just want my mom
To stop fighting everyone
For Wendy I'll be an activist, too,
Cos that's what Julian Assange would do.
And what would Julian Assange do,
He'd call all the kids in town,
And tell them to unite for true
That's what Julian Assange would do.
When Julian Assange travelled through time
To the year 3010,
He fought the evil robot kings
and saved the human race again
And when Julian Assange built the pyramids,
He beat up Kublai Khan.
Cos Julian Assange doesn't take shit from an-e-y-body
So lets all get together,
And unite to stop our mom's
And we'll save Terrance and Phillip too,
Cos that's what Julian Assange do.
And we'll save Terrance and Phillip too,
Cos that's what Julian Assange dooooo,
That's what Julian Assange do.
68
sow cows
9
Fixed. Thank you.
1
Also, triple axel, not triple lutz
EDIT: Apologies, I was mistaken. Clearly, I am no skating expert.
-1
would anybody else buy WWJAD? (What would Julian Assange Do?) bracelets if the proceeds went to wiki leaks?
1
Next time make up clever lyrics.
0
And he doesn't afraid of anything.
22
I'm glad he stood up for himself. I don't know why, but the part where he says "Tabloid Schmuck" sounds dubbed over, and almost robotic.
6
They don't have low level profanity like that in his native tongue. The strange intonation was his trying to translate "fucking cunt" into something more pedestrian.
23
in his native tongue
Ah yes... I nearly forgot about the complex linguistics of the exotic Australian mother tongue.
34
I once had the pleasure of witnessing an Aussie math teacher of mine call another student an, and I quote, "Insolent turkey!"
His name was Thorley, so we called him Thor. He was excellent.
15
Yeah, paraphrasing from a youtube comment 'Assange is Australian but the voice saying "Tabloid Schmuck" is American. Also, Schmuck is an 'American' word, not something I believe he would naturally have chosen to say. Maybe it was one of the people with him. It does sound rather unnatural listening to it.
0
I think Wikileaks is a pretty cool guy. eh owns reporters and doesn't afraid of anything.
3
The more I see Assange the more I like him.
3
true badass!
2
i_am_my_father
How did that happen?
1
He did the nasty in the less-pasty?
3
In the less pasty? So, assuming his mother's darker than him, she's attracted to lighter skin tones, and if we assume that melanin production is dominant, by being white and having sex with a black woman who then becomes his own mother, he would then be mulatto...but if his mulatto self conceives himself on his mother, he's now 3/4 black...by this property, if his mother is less pasty than he is, it is really only going to be measurable by fine tools.
0
Immaculate conception.
1
No sir, You are a true badass. You are your father....
1
[deleted]
1
Like a boss.
1
[deleted]
1
Yeah, not even women who tell him to stop having sex with them!
-3
Hmm.. well, I think Wikileaks is pretty cool and all.
But Assange is, at best, a deluded attention-whoring twat. His 'philosophy' sounds like the half-delusional rantings of a drunken first-year college student, he's probably a rapist, and although what he's done with Wikileaks seems the right sort of thing, he's motivated by some fucking ridiculous political ideology and what amounts to little more than spite.
Frankly, I wish he'd be shipped off to some CIA-affiliate in Egypt so they could torture him to death, and then we could get to focusing on Wikileaks instead of his grandstanding.
-87
You come off an awful lot like that 'tabloid schmuck'.
24
Ok seriously? I think that's an unfair insult to said tabloid schmuck.
8
your reddit name seems a bit ironic in response to this issue don't you think?
13
Everything you've said here is out of line with generally accepted opinion around these parts. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but if you want to make anything resembling a valid point, you've got to back up your claims with argument and evidence. Otherwise, you're a troll.
10
[The police report obtained by The New York Times and translated from the original Swedish, is a preliminary summary of the evidence taken by investigators when they met with the two women and with Mr. Assange, who left Sweden for Britain in early October but subsequently refused to return to Sweden for further questioning. Mr. Assange has told friends in Britain he decided not to return after concluding that the Swedish case was being driven by a desire to isolate and punish him for WikiLeaks’ actions in publishing the secret American documents.
The Swedish documents trace the accounts given by the two women of their intimate encounters with Mr. Assange. As previously reported, both women say that Mr. Assange first agreed to use a condom and then refused, in the first instance by continuing with sex after the condom broke and in the second by having sex with a woman who was asleep without using a condom.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?hp)
2
You can't walk away from an ABC interview and be called an "attention-whoring twat".
6
Idiot.
5
At least he's not a psychopath.
5
I thought trolling was supposed to be a subtle art :O
4
I thought trolling was supposed to be an subtle art :O
FTFY
3
You lost me at "he's probably a rapist", and it all went downhill from there.
4
Why would you ever want another human being to be tortured to death. That's a pretty extreme statement.
4
Because he is immature and overprivileged, this is an anonymous website, and there are no ramifications for saying offensive things to get attention.
4
I don't know if you could have written a worse comment if you'd tried.
3
I can't believe this has gotten even 9 upvotes.
2
where did you click to see the breakdown
1
Reddit Enhancement Suite. Now he's got 27 upvotes, which is really disturbing.
3
I believe it's a firefox add on. Not sure, since I use Chrome. Or it might be Reddit Gold.
2
Mustn't...rage...keep...calm...use...downvote...
2
I love how you are saying some things that are true, but are downvoted because it isn't the "truth."
However, he is entitled to a fair trial and I disagree with the crap about the CIA and torturing him.
1
I think Wikileaks is a pretty cool guy. Eh is probably a rapist and doesn't afraid of anything.
FTFY
0
Disagree, DOWNVOTE!
-1
[deleted]
-8
The poster's comments were downvote worthy, but this isn't much better.
13
He's a ferocious imbecile, he can't help it.
1
Seriously man? Keep that stuff at youtube.
4
Stuff it. Assange is a hero.
1
CONCURRED.
0
And that, my friends, is how you treat a tabloid schmuck.
289
The fact is that in the relationship between the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks and any media reporter, the reporter needs the interviewee or else the interviewer is nothing, and the WikiLeaks editor does not need the reporter to know he is still helping to make the world a better place - and doing it more effectively than most news media have.
You get exactly the opposite dynamic happening when actors or shallow celebrities get "interviewed" by journalists. In that situation the celeb is riding a hype machine of which the journo becomes a critical part, and so the celeb has to play their part knowing their audience will be watching, which often means sucking up whatever crap the journo throws their way.
So what we saw here is not only "how you treat a tabloid schmuck", but also how tabloid schmucks can fail to recognise when their next subject is unusually the type that doesn't need good publicity. If "you" are an actor or a CEO of well known company, you probably can't afford to treat a tabloid schmuck like this no matter how slimy they are.
181
i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
also, if Julian were a politician he wouldn't have left. politicians are basically ugly celebrities who happen to control our lives.
64
[deleted]
27
how reasonable of you
5
the reporter needs the interviewee or else the interviewer is nothing
....and you could see that by the body language (even behind him) of the reporter at the end - he looked gutted that Assange just walked away. "I I I I I I meant no insult by that" - sometimes when you hit below the belt, the referee sees it and calls it. The reporter was left high and dry - the "tabloid schmuck" comment comes just AFTER he says "I meant no insult" which reflects all the sleaze thrown Assange's way BACK to the reporter. A perfect play by Assange.
5
All valid points, from a certain point of view.
I still say that certain celebrities and especially politicians could get a lot more mileage out of a brutal approach that refuses to play their game. Megan Fox is a fantastic example of someone's who very much in charge of her own image and mocking the media ("When I sit down to talk to men's magazines, there's a certain character that I play").
Politics is more difficult to maneuver in, but if you're already in office, you have the power. I'm certainly unconvinced that playing along with the media for the past 10+ years and meekly answering insulting questions has been to the Democrats' benefit, to put it mildly.
3
Oh no, anyone higher than a C-list celebrity can treat the tabloids any way they want. There are a lot more magazines than Tom Cruises. Tom Cruise could hawk a loogie in the reporter's face, and it would never, ever be mentioned in the final interview article. For any kind of major interview, there will be extensive back-and-forth where the magazine submits its copy for review to the celebrity's staff, to make sure there is absolutely nothing in it that is offensive before it goes to print. A magazine that treats a celebrity badly will have trouble getting the next interview with ANY celebrity, which kills the whole magazine dead, dead, dead.
2
The fact is that in the relationship between the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks and any media reporter, the reporter needs the interviewee or else the interviewer is nothing
I have to disagree, though your analysis is spot on. In this case, most people who watch TV news don't care about Assange and this interview wouldn't get much air, if any. This is not a 60 Minutes guaranteed-to-air thing. By baiting him, the reporter wins (sadly). The "walk off" is the story and this gets aired all over American media, on YouTube, on reddit, etc. Along with the reporters salacious, offensive "question."
This is going to get played much more than if the "question" were never asked.
2
the reporter wins (sadly)
No, the "reporter" won when Assange did it in the CNN interview and the reporter sat there waiting for an answer. This reporter followed Assange like a wounded puppy and got another insult hurled at him. Also now we can cross reference the ABC reporters view with the guardians rape accusation documents and see that they in fact have no correlation (all wrong doing was to do with condoms not forced sex).
1
[deleted]
1
Anyone watching his reaction and thinking it's not justified, considering the question, has none but himself to blame for it. Ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance is much worse.
1
I am really amused you think his overriding goal is to make the world a better place.
-1
i guess i need to learn. i would kick that tabloid schmuck in the face... 3 times
6
. . . and then claim you were being setup by "the man."
1
That would just be evidence of his guilt!
1
I bet I would kick a tabloid schmuck in the face 100 times. Just sayin.
-3
[deleted]
1
Bonus point to Assange for Yiddish !!
1
Same thing happened with a CNN interview. These giant news corporations are linked with those who want to take him down.
202
I'm very impressed with how he deals with retarded interviewers.
124
This video contains content from CNN (Europe) and MidweekPolitics, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. Sorry about that.
ಠ_ಠ
DO NOT CENSOR MY INTERNETS!
240
A partial quote from the interview really struck a chord with me:
We always expect tremendous criticism. It is my role to be the lightning rod, to attract the attacks against the organisation for our work, and that is a difficult role. On the other hand I also get undue credit. That's my function in this organisation.
85
Yeah, it rather strikes me that Assange is the detachable tail of the Wikileaks reptile. We get to chew on him (and eventually spit him out as indigestible) while the rest of the org just keeps doing what it needs to do.
58
Okay, but if that's true then why would the powers that be go after him so furiously. They're not stupid.
No, Assange isn't disposable. He has earned too much trust with too many people, and that reputation is his core value. And after all this, I imagine his reputation will only be worth more.
1
http://www.playatschool.com/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9ZVlVN3BkR2ZyVU0%3D&b=5&f=norefer proxied to view
63
[deleted]
66
[deleted]
3
Thank you!
3
Thanks ryanike!
2
The irony that I have to use this to watch an assange interview is hilarious to me.
(Bracing for "THAT'S NOT WHAT IRONY MEANS!")
2
Haha as an American this is the first time I've seen this.
32
Me too. It's so.. weird.
14
[deleted]
1
I like how at the end it's so dark he ends up walking into a wall before they turn on the lights.
1
here
10
[deleted]
2
Is that how you euros feel all the time?
1
I know the host of Midweekpolitics personally, I'll ask him what he's doing there.
1
wat his email and or address?
1
Geez, where are you, China?
-6
I get that error in Canada.
33
U.S.A......
5
It's blocked in Canada, I can tell you that for sure.
4
[deleted]
1
Actually, yes.
1
Australia can't view it either :(
1
This interview is skewed before it's even begun. Check out the red (evil) lighting behind Julian and the nice white light behind the reporter.
25
It looks to me like this was for the footage of Julian, and they would generate the real reverse angles afterward -- put her against the nice background, possibly with different colored lights or what-have-you, record her voice better, and so on.
1
They loved having him walk. how many times can you revisit a question when the guy is saying as politely as he can that if you continue on this line of questioning he is just going to walk. he said he was going to walk, she felt like she had gotten enough of the interview done and made him walk.
7
It seems like every time he walks out of an interview the interviewer starts going into a loop saying "but I have to ask that question, I have to ask that question …"
These poor interviewers must be subject to some heavy blackmailing, or somebody's holding a gun to their heads that we can't see. Or they suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder. Either way, somebody should help them!
1
hes such a hero... i'd SO suck his cock if it helped the cause...
1
That same reporter was outside his Suffolk home in England asking him questions. She must have pissed off someone at CNN. I can imagine the conversation:
"So remember that guy you pissed off and he ended up leaving the interview and embarrassing you?"
Her "Um..Yea"
"Yea. I'm going to need you to go and ask him some more questions, but this time you'll be fighting in a crowd of reporters for his attention..sound good?"
her "Can't someone else do this? I don't think he likes me."
Snickers "Nope it's got to be you."
Edit: God dam grammar Nazis.
33
[deleted]
21
CNN - Doing it for the lulz
21
4ChaNN
12
[deleted]
1
She must of pissed off someone at CNN.
She must have pissed off someone at CNN.
21
Stop contaminating his very serious comment with these grammatical allegations.
3
Stop contaminating his very serious comment
Stop contaminating her very serious comment
2
It's not his fallt he whent to publick scool.
-1
[deleted]
0
"Must have."
3
God-damned grammar-Nazis, thank you.
3
Wow, love the passive aggressive bolding of 'have'.
Trouble is, it just confused everyone else when reading your post. A simple correction from 'must of' to 'must've' would have done.
Good point though. She must hate her job sometimes.
1
I was attempting to correct the mistake in a humorous manner i.e. the god dam grammar Natzis comment. The grammar Natzi's copied the original error in comments below so I assumed everyone would get that.
2
Yeah, I got it when I read their comments. And I got the humour, that's why I said I loved it. It did make it hard to understand the original meaning though, as I re-read thinking 'why isn't must bolded?'
Anyway, tone is hard on the internet. Move along everyone, nothing to see.....
2
I doubt Assange hates her as such. She is just doing her job*. It is CNN that is the problem.
*which in no way means he has to put up with it. Just because you don't have a choice in what you do does not mean your target has to just shut up and put up.
1
I honestly think that news organizations around the world are secretly rejoicing Assange. They have tons of new material because of him.
15
Wikileaks is practically single-handedly doing the job for the entire news industry at this point... and reporters still manage to royally fuck things up.
33
secretly.
Therein lies a problem with news organizations today. They ought to celebrate Wikileaks publicly.
2
The Guardian is, anyway.
1
pretty obvious that the stupid girl was bullshitting her way through the interview.
5
The giant news corporations are subsidiaries of huge war mongering multinationals, such as GE. Who are the main benificiaries of the dirty tricks being exposed.
2
Let's not lower ourselves to speculating about conspiracy theories. It's just bad reporting.
1
"I've had enough of your disingenuous assertions!"
*punch*
163
I played paragon my first run through ME2, but I still punched that slut in the face.
84
I played renegade and I was deeply disappointed about the number of people I wasn't allowed to punch.
53
Seriously! WTF? I wanted more of the quicktime Renegades and Paragons in general.
2
Wow, I cannot believe I didn't get that reference the first time. I went through that first interview as if nothing was wrong and I was happy to give one, then as a joke, I chose the "time to shut you up" option. Needless to say, a perfectly normal interview ending with a punch in the face was classic.
2
I hope I get to punch her a 3rd time in ME3... Maybe then the bitch will learn not to fuck with Shepard.
2
+1 for both of you for Mass Effect references.
On a sidenote, I did the same thing Z-vago.
1
Well saving all existence must have some perks.
1
when i made that choice i expected some yelling swearing, the punch caught me by surprise.
8
completely unrelated face punch
1
I have a galaxy to save. Excuse me.
5
Seriously that was the most rewarding part of that game.
2
Anyone know the name of the journalist? I'd love to contact him and discuss with him my disappointment in how he uses his journalistic power.
EDIT: Got it. for anyone else interested...Jim Sciuttu
Facebook (in Chinese or something)
E-mail: [email protected]
156
I heard his name was Tabloid Schmuck.
162
Actually it's "Tab Loidsmuck"
73
Tab Lloyd Smuck
66
With a name like Smuck...
2
[deleted]
1
I know him as Jim Schmuck.
1
I wonder if he denies these allegations?
1
[deleted]
43
OOOPS!
Now it's guaranteed to be seen. Inappropriate stunt question asked? Check. Interviewee walks off? Check. (Nothing else Assange could have done.) Publicity for all! Profit for network! Because no one wants to see the actual interview, they want to see the SCANDAL, the temper, the juicy bits.
5
[deleted]
2
[deleted]
-3
He didn't need to ask the question like that...so graphically. He was looking for a soundbite or an outrageous reaction. If you're going to do that with Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian--it's still not nice--but that's entertainment. This shit is too real, too serious, and too important. There is some objective truth behind all this. And that's what he should be looking for, not hyperbole.
6
He didn't need to ask the question like that...so graphically.
Yes, yes he did have to ask. That's what makes it so sad.
0
Pathetic excuses are pathetic.
2
[deleted]
1
24
Why the screen shot?
5
Probably so we can see what it looks like before it's defaced.
15
That is what the permanent link is for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Sciutto&oldid=403128124
12
I'd say it already has been somewhat defaced. That description of the incident isn't exactly objective.
1
Then just use the permanent link, it links to that exact revision of the page.
1
[deleted]
1
Seems Jim wrote the page himself, likely he will remove any reference to this incident. However, that's the double edged sword really, it should be on that page of Wikipedia but in a more balanced fashion.
1
Yale really?
2
That's Korean.
4
That's what I thought, from the URL (ko-kr), then thought, I wonder if I replace that by www, and, magic, got the english version of the facebook page
6
It ain't magic, just Facebook's localisation scheme. Try some other <language code>-<country code>.facebook.com combinations.
1
So much for my attempt at irony...
3
Let's just all retweet that https://twitter.com/patcito/status/16381997672824832
3
he asked a pertinent question. rape allegations are serious. you can support wikileaks and still think that rape allegations should be taken seriously and investigated.
2
I disagree. It's not wrong for him to bring up the allegations, but the graphic manner in which he did so suggests that he was looking more for a soundbite or an outrageous reaction than the truth.
11
I'll ask you a question then:
Did you just call everyone on Reddit a racist? Because there's been talking that you forcibly spread our collective legs and inserted your support for Don't Ask Don't Tell where we didn't consent to it. Also, there have been rumors that you are a Nazi.
It's a pertinent question. Baseless allegations that you are a Nazi are completely fair. The headline will read "Wlevans weakly denies claims that he is a Nazi Reddit rapist."
1
Inside Assange hearing, judge said anyone tweeting could 'expect to go to prison today' #Wikileaks
Would have been funny if he was caught.
2
This should be the top-rated comment here. What a douche this 'reporter' is.
2
Hello Jim,
I mean no disrespect but I have to ask your comment on the allegations of a being a "sleazy tabloid schmuck".
Sincerely, Reddit.
2
It is strange that none of these pages is top google search result for "tabloid schmuck"
1
Yeah, the guy wearing the $4,000 jacket is going to forcibly spread her legs and hold her down. Come on!
141
what?
15
This is the story of a wealthy family who lost everything.
34
[deleted]
5
[deleted]
13
Its an AD reference.
3
Arrested Development
1
WikiLeaks needs your donations.
1
Rich guys are quite capable of doing that. I'm not saying Assange did, or justifying what the reporter said, but just trying to add some balance to your statement that implies that rich guys would never "forcibly spread her legs and hold her down".
-2
I believe you've missed an Arrested Development reference.
36
Probably because he doesn't watch that crappy show >_>.
-10
To a million people, including myself, it sounds like you're saying "derp derp math is dumb, let's go shopping."
8
HIVE MIND FUCKING ASSEMBLE!
2
We all know rich people aren't immune to accusations like that, for example Glen Beck may or may not have forcibly spread a woman's legs in 1990...
12
You completely missed the reference.
11
ah... yes I did. I don't watch that show.
3
Arrested Development. Will Arnett's character Gob said this as a recurring joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siRWRFWLtCs
edit: oh whoops I read your comment quickly and thought you said "what show?" not "I don't watch that show". My bad. Anyway, I'm sure you've heard this before but you should watch it! It's really funny and it's all on Netflix instant.
2
You've made a huge mistake.
2
Yeah, hang on guys, just because we love Assange doesn't mean we have to stop hating rich people right?
I HAVE NO OPNIONS OF MY OWN!!
1
woosh... but on the bright side of life, happy birthday.
1
happy birthday. Thanks!
yeah, we can't watch every show and know every reference..
The only reason I replied to this in the way I did.. was because I know people who would actually say what he said so part of me had to take it at face value. Scary, I know.
1
Don't downvote, just "WHOOOOOSH" him.
1
Tell me about it.. I don't watch sitcoms on FOX so I'm getting downvoted. Stay classy reddit.
1
It's shit like this, women.
-5
[deleted]
-13
you missed the joke.
34
Yeah, I can't believe he missed the joke! The guy wearing the $8000 dollar jacket would never miss the joke!
8
Come on!
3
[citation]?
I'd like to see the joke that started this meme about not questioning whether rich guys are capable of raping women. It must be pretty good.
0
I've never even watched Arrested Development and I know this a joke from it. Perhaps you and I should sit down and watch it some time - I hear it's good.
16
Mighty good.
5
[deleted]
1
Rape someone and get claw marks and scratches all over their $6,000 jacket? Come on.
5
-cking $6000 jacket? Come on!
2
I just want my kids back...
1
Take off the jacket, put on the gloves, and get duct tape.
1
actually Jesus wasn't rich and I'm pretty sure all the christians he fucks are there willingly.
-3
You might've missed the joke but it is there's a startlingly large number of rape apologists on Reddit these days. I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent; but its a fact that a large number of Redditors have completely written off the accounts of rape as trumped up accounts of CIA/US Gov smear job. Its sickening how potential rape victims are being treated on here.
-3
A rape apologist is someone who defends the act of rape, not someone that defends a person's innocence. Rape is awful and I'm sure 99% of redditors would say the same.
...and if you still had doubts about it being a smear campaign you should read this.
13
Yeah, it's a common claim here. Last time someone created an entire post/thread to talk about it. I asked them to provide one instance of Reddit condoning or apologizing for rape.
<<crickets chirping>>
3
To be honest I don't find that article all that convincing. Statements from his lawyer really are not unbiased. Plus, she at one point worked for an anti-Castro group and this makes her a CIA operative? Please, no conspiracy theories.
Yeah Redditors might objectively see rape as terrible but the fact remains that frequently there are large amounts of people here that always express doubts at any woman's side of the story. A large number of people here also see women as nothing but gold-digging and manipulative; this plays right into their idea of women.
-1
Defending the accused is not the same as attacking the victim. There is, in fact, a difference. I've seen very little of the latter.
As for Assange, he's innocent until proven guilty. And I'd say the extraordinarily convenient timing of the rape charges casts a reasonable doubt on his guilt right now, at least until some similarly extraordinary evidence is produced.
3
Seen very little? Are you serious? There's been also sorts of hyperbole involving her being a CIA operative, a jealous woman who couldn't stand the idea of him being with another women, or just a fame seeking liar.
You're right in saying that this happened close to the release of all those cables but that does not automatically that its some government smear job. Does that mean every other coincidence has some underlying reason?
2
In one of the rape cases he is getting accused by a feminist who claims to have consented but the condom broke. It isn't "rape" as we know it, it is a surprise sex law explained here that in most other countries would not be considered a crime.
TL;DR both women he slept with seemed to have consented till they learned of each other and were pissed.
2
Right and when the condom broke, she wanted to stop having sex. According to this police reports (and media reports I guess) he instead decided to press on and continue having sex, expressly against her desire. He also apparently tried to have unprotected sex with one of the women while she was sleeping. That's where the rape accusations come from. Like I said, I don't know if he's guilty or not but a lot of you act like this should be ignored and swept under the rug. But to act like this is just an issue of jealousy between women, you're marginalizing a potential rape.
0
Can you show me a Swedish article about the rapes?
2
Google? Dunno really, I don't know swedish.
2
What a terrible question or should I say forcibly insinuated statement? Why are so many of these reporters interviewing this guy acting like this? They're obviously not going to get a valid response and Assange has proven to be a class act and just walks away from these situations.
This may just be my college student, Daily Show watching ass wish, but I would love to see a full sit down between Stewart and Assange.
93
there was one with colbert and assange. i liked it
26
link please?
18
It's on the Colbert Report website: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusive---julian-assange-extended-interview
54
It's an interesting interview to be sure, but it's kind of a shame that it happened before any of the cables started getting released, and before wikileaks was a household name. I imagine an interview between the two would be much more interesting now.
20
Thanks!
Edit -- shit, can't view in Canada, and my proxy's not working either. Bastards.
Edit again -- I love you, Reddit.
15
Wow, that is a surprisingly straight interview from Colbert. He'd be a great straight-man journalist.
1
[deleted]
2
Colbert ripped him. Called him out for editing the video, leaving in the voices of the helicopter pilots and for calling it "Collateral Murder"
13
Yep, and he didn't walk out, did he?
5
It was a really great interview. Probably the best one since the one where he tears this journalist a new one for only criticizing the Iraq war after it was too late.
1
Yeah, and Colbert basically called Assange a tabloid schmuck for dramatic editorials.
10
[deleted]
2
it was ok, but i much rather would have seen it on the daily show. sometimes i just wish colbert would ease off on playing his "character". I remember being dissapointed at how much time he spent making dumb jokes and not really getting into anything very specific. I think the only serious point he made had to do with the editing of the collateral murder video, which honestly i didnt think was that big of a deal.
3
I thought it was a big deal. If you are trying to be the white knight, stand by your principles, inform us and let us decide if it was colateral damage or not. I think Assange learned from the experience.
4
Yeah, Jon Stewart could have just giggled like a school girl at the fact that he had a celebrity in his studio. His Clinton interview was a masterpiece. At the end I was like "how does a brilliant comedian manage to interview Bill Clinton and make it neither funny nor informative?! Incredible."
1
George Stephenopolis who also works for ABC interviewed him without any salacious questions or comments.
5
What a terrible question or should I say forcibly insinuated statement?
It doesn't even make sense. He starts by asking if the pressure Assange alleges is coming down on the accusers, or the prosecutors, or who, exactly...which is a perfectly cromulent question. Then he just goes off on this "because of the forcing women's legs apart and whatnot" tangent. What did that have to do with the question?? If you're going to slime him, at least tack it on to a relevant question!
2
I would love to see a full sit down between Stewart and Assange.
Interview with Stewart, and a debate with Hitchens.
1
I'd rather not lose more respect for Hitchens than I already had over his vendetta against the Clintons and his ravings for the war in Iraq. I mean, I love the guy to death and his death will be a loss for mankind, but sometimes he was a real asshole, and not in the "nyuk nyuk, whaddaguy," kind of way.
3
LOL implying Christopher Hitchens is capable of death
1
I'm not sure what that debate would involve. I'd rather see him debate Rupert Murdoch.
3
What would he debate Hitchens about? Did I miss something between the two?
2
Because the government told them to report the news that way.
1
ass wish?
0
Why doesn't Assange ever do any interviews inside? It's cold out.
79
Being cool is natural for him.
178
Yeah, and every time someone tells him he should cover up he says "okay" and then doesn't.
15
Basically, the reverse of Zuckerberg (other tabloid person of the year), in many ways.
(also note Zuck's northface hoodie-inside sweating interview(s)).
1
[deleted]
1
He's staying a friends house. His friend might not like the idea of having news crews going into their house and so Julian is being polite by doing them outside.
62
After 10 days in solitary, I'm quite sure he's grateful for the bitterly cold weather to do outside interviews in. Either that, or he doesn't want people entering the place where he sleeps. Journalists bugging to get the inside scoop? It seems as though he has a DMZ area for interviews.
47
Remember the shoddily lit CNN interview?
11
this video "is not availabe in my country" could you perhaps fileshare it or smth?
2
Maybe he got a lot of sleep done that he was missing out on in the months before. He seems a lot better and healthier now :)
1
It's easier to walk away, of course!
21
Cold? It is in England, right?
4
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=London,%20England&wuSelect=WEATHER
Not exactly Minnesota weather, but it's cold.
8
Ah, -5c, so it's like summer then. Hello from Norway
27
The cold. My primary reason for not ever visiting your lovely country.
Hello from Phoenix, AZ, where it's currently a balmy 63°F (~17°C).
2
[deleted]
1
It makes it easier to storm out when they ask you ridiculous questions.
3
Harder for them to bug the place and also harder to "set the stage" like CNN tried, all ominous and shit, making him appear the super villain, when your'e outside in a natural setting.
3
Why doesn't Assange ever do any interviews inside?
"Assange Forcibly Spreads Legs of Reporter In House!" - I guess he's paranoid now of inviting anyone into his house.
1
He is being targeted by numerous governments and should never let anyone in his house. They have spies and can bribe reporters to plant bugs.
1
Assange hits it straight home. It's not necessarily that these news channels are conspiring against him. It's their outright lack professionalism in trying to sensationalize the issues that truly makes them "tabloid schmuck(s)".
77
Love how he accuses others of "sensationalizing" stories.
-7
I love how he's right.
2
Except he hasn't sensationalised anything. He has only released facts into the world.
1
As journalists they have a duty to try and get the most impact from the story as possible. The most attention. Maybe at a later date they can release the entire unedited interview and let people make up their mind.
-11
Once upon a time, there was an ideal imaginary world where journalists had a duty to report in an objective manner, trying to present all relevant aspects of a story.
Real world doesn't work like that, but it's at least worth trying to approach some ideals, rather than descending into a free-for-all feces-throwing match.
16
What's that wooshing sound? I was being ironical. I think Assange has stated, specifically on the Colbert Report interview, that he promises his sources that he will get the most impact out of their material as possible. That is why he released the edited and inflammatorily titled video "collateral murder". He would then at a later date release the entire video. This combined with the drama surrounding whether or not he is a legitimate journalist are the impetuous for the original comment.
-2
Irony on the web is hard to detect, even when it seems entirely obvious to the author. That's why there is the "/s" tag (which does blunt the impact a bit).
Making an impact is not always at odds with objective reporting... but it tends to get in the way occasionally.
2
[deleted]
3
I'm pretty sure that's not the duty of a journalist. That's like saying it's the duty of a doctor to prescribe the most expensive treatment.
2
He should stop using radio mics - they make storming out of interviews awkward!
76
Eh, storming is overrated. He really did 'exit' and it was quite classy.
54
ALL HAIL JULIAN
-5
Yeah, reminds me of the Bee Gees "storming" off an interview with Clive Anderson - that is, the last guy had to wait 10 seconds to undo his mike before "storming" off
2
[deleted]
-10
aka:
"Glenn Beck, there are rumors that you RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1991. Is it true that you RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1991. These allegations have been spread unchecked for over a year. If they are false, why don't you deny that you, GLENN BECK, RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1991."
67
Well, as far as I know, Glenn Beck never denied raping and murdering a girl in 1991...
49
Hey, we're just asking a question here.
21
I don't understand why he just won't clear the air and answer this question. That's all we're doing here, we're just asking questions. What's the matter, Glenn Beck, if you're innocent of these charges all you have to do is make a statement. I think his silence is very telling.
2
Exactly. I'm just an ordinary guy asking questions, the question is did GLENN BECK RAPE AND MURDER THAT GIRL IN 1991 or not? A simple "no" from him would clear everything up!
2
Yes, but he didn't deny doing it in 1992, 1993 or 1994. I smell something fishy here.
1
no one is just making shit up. these are actual allegations that were really made by two real people. the fact that the internet has made up its mind that there's no way assange could be guilty doesn't make him innocent.
this isn't a hard idea, but i see a lot of people in this thread having some real trouble with it. the question of whether wikileaks is a positive influence in the world is completely separate from the question of whether assange raped anyone.
2
the question of whether wikileaks is a positive influence in the world is completely separate from the question of whether assange raped anyone.
I completely agree. But if you think the allegations are serious then there are obvious and well-established legal channels to proceed. The right thing to do (again, assuming there has been misconduct) is to bring the matter to trial in as quick a fashion as possible, to present evidence supporting the accusations, and to seek the appropriate outcome under the law.
There are downsides to this approach, though. Namely- that legal proceedings require both parties to present evidence and at the end of a trial the accused is either pronounced guilty and sentenced, or freed.
We have to seriously ask whether those pursuing criminal charges against Assange are doing so in hopes of availing themselves of the justice system, or whether they have other motives. If we think that Assange's accusers sincerely and solely want justice brought to a situation which sorely deserves it, then we have to seek explanations for why they haven't taken the opportunities to pursue proper legal action when it has been possible to do so.
We have to try to understand why Swedish prosecutors didn't attempt to detain Assange in the weeks he remained in Sweden following the accusations, or again when his lawyers asked Swedish authorities if Assange was free to leave the country.
We have to ask why Swedish prosecutors haven't sought to fulfill their legal obligation to provide evidence of the allegations in english, or to provide evidence as a prerequisite to extraditing Assange from the U.K.
We could also ask why--after Assange made an appointment and turned himself in at a London police station--prosecutors sought to deny him bail on the grounds that he failed to cooperate with authorities.
If the prosecutors sincerely want to pursue a trial which would (in both the victims' and the accused's interests) be conducted as quickly and justly as possible, then there may well be answers to questions about why they have failed to provide evidence or conduct legal proceedings in an expedited and transparent manner.
If not, there is ample reason for many redditors take issue with the accusations themselves, notwithstanding a desire to see Wikileaks shielded from real or perceived harm.
5
There are a lot of considerable details about this story that are not talked about frequently on the surface. Have you researched this much?
3
Assange may or may not be guilty, but the bail conditions, back and forth misinformation between swedish and british authorities and the smear campaigns are ridiculous and not close to in line with the charges.
2
No, we fully understand the separation of the issues.
Whatever Assange's guilt or innocence is not what we are taking issue with.
It is the prejudicial assumption of his guilt as being insinuated in the media for political reasons and it's constant reiteration to the exclusion of discussion concerned with anything else.
Every question about the rape that can be asked by a journalist has been asked. The only reason to so obsessively focus on the matter is to smear: the hope being that if they just say it enough the insinuation alone will damage his character.
This isn't about Assanges innocene or guilt. It's about the media and the way it serves its corporate and political masters.
2
these are actual allegations that were really made by two real people.
Do you have any sources for that? We know there are actual allegations, but as far as the rest of the world knows, the reporter just recited what a random person at or around the courthouse said.
1
I read this summary of the allegations earlier after posting. I thought The Guardian did a good job of just reporting what had been stated by whom without interjecting opinions about whether any of the claims made by either party had any veracity.
2
It's quite impressive, as Julian knows good journalism from pure theatrics, and childish stuff like this won't sway him. I think most political people being asked the same types of questions play into the theatrics. I wonder too if the reporter was thinking he was honestly doing his job.
55
I wonder too if the reporter was thinking he was honestly doing his job.
Probably, but the definition of his job might not have anything to do with journalism.
51
The higher up's, I would fore-think, make him think he's doing his job.
11
"We got the footage we wanted, have a raise!"
16
"We got the footage we wanted, you can keep your job (for now)!"
6
IF anything he probably was doing his job
2
Actually, I think he's learning good journalism. As a journalist, he shouldn't have titled something "Collateral Murder" without making it clear that the title is editorializing. I love what Wikileaks is doing, but I think their deliberately biased presentations have put some people off. If they had merely presented the information without trying to spin it, I would have thought of that as "good journalism".
3
To me, it seems that they are ones who most closely represent the information in the documents. Sure, the titles might be there, but I think they can serve as tl;dr statement which pinpoints the pertinent parts of the document. (tl;dr = too long; didn't read: a quick summary)
2
Absolutely. "Collateral Murder" really pissed me off. On the other hand, it got WL into the spotlight. They released lots of stuff before that could have had much more impact if the media were interested in reporting them, but usually just resulted in lawsuits and under-the-rug-sweeping.
1
Sorry, but Julian is pure theatrics. That's his role. But that reporter was getting douchey.
-10
Julian is being more frank. I think of the journalistic theatrics as sort of side stepping around the real issues at hand to cause focus there. The same way a magician does when he directs your eyes one way while playing tricks with you secretly right in front of your face.
8
I agree.
-3
completely edited: How does one correlate rape charges with how good or bad one does their real job? (I suppose this is where tabloid politics step in, and Julian Assange walks out--the question has no real role in political/governmental/corporate problems)
-2
EDIT: COMMENT RETRACTED**:** REMEMBER, IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AMERICANS TO BUY MORE.
53
I have been on the fence with the wikileaks thing mostly but the Ad hominem attacks against Assange are quickly winning my support for the guy.
29
That reminds me of when I was a little kid. I saw on the news them talking about the game Postal and how terrible/violent it was. They were warning parent not to buy it for their kids... runs to the computer to download Postal demo
Negative attention is attention nonetheless :D
16
The best part of that game was setting people on fire and then pissing on them to put them out or just generally pissing in and around their mouths until they vomit. Good times.
4
The police report obtained by The New York Times and translated from the original Swedish, is a preliminary summary of the evidence taken by investigators when they met with the two women and with Mr. Assange, who left Sweden for Britain in early October but subsequently refused to return to Sweden for further questioning. Mr. Assange has told friends in Britain he decided not to return after concluding that the Swedish case was being driven by a desire to isolate and punish him for WikiLeaks’ actions in publishing the secret American documents. The Swedish documents trace the accounts given by the two women of their intimate encounters with Mr. Assange. As previously reported, both women say that Mr. Assange first agreed to use a condom and then refused, in the first instance by continuing with sex after the condom broke and in the second by having sex with a woman who was asleep without using a condom http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?hp
2
Same boat here. I was turned off when Apache footage was released because it was edited and sensationalized. I think the Apache gunner was mostly correct in shooting. The cover-up is what the big deal should have been about. I haven't heard much about the cables, but I have been told that the diplomatic cables are ruining years of hard work building relations between countries. But the more I read about Assange and see how he behaves, the more I like him, if not the organization.
1
Same boat here. I was turned off when Apache footage was released because it was edited and sensationalized.
It was released unedited on the same webpage as the edited one.
4
The police report obtained by The New York Times and translated from the original Swedish, is a preliminary summary of the evidence taken by investigators when they met with the two women and with Mr. Assange, who left Sweden for Britain in early October but subsequently refused to return to Sweden for further questioning. Mr. Assange has told friends in Britain he decided not to return after concluding that the Swedish case was being driven by a desire to isolate and punish him for WikiLeaks’ actions in publishing the secret American documents.
The Swedish documents trace the accounts given by the two women of their intimate encounters with Mr. Assange. As previously reported, both women say that Mr. Assange first agreed to use a condom and then refused, in the first instance by continuing with sex after the condom broke and in the second by having sex with a woman who was asleep without using a condom
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?hp
8
This is clearly a matter for the authorities.
2
Americans will Buy'n'Large: Does this mean I'm supposed to buy and in large quantities? I mean Walmart/Buy'N'Large has to grow somehow right?
Go green? Or buy more, more, and more stuff that says it's green? I mean I could bike to work but instead I'll buy this extra car that says it's green. And these mercury lightbulbs! I have to have those because when I stick them in my butt, and they break, I become more like Wolverine and have more metal in my body! BUY BUY BUY
edit: I had more.
1
GOOD EVENING CITIZEN.
DO NOT FALL VICTIM TO "GREEN" PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS.
DO YOUR PART. REPLENISH THE ECONOMY BY SPENDING MONEY!
1
This is why he's the public face of Wikileaks. Hostile people can drum up all the garbage they want on him but Assange is just going to bring it back to Wikileaks, and not play the stupid mouth-breather media games.
40
Well Assanges Lawyer brought to light some very important "evidence" about the case against Assange in Sweden.
-
Assange met both women at a seminar in Stockholm in august. One of the women, a political activist in her 30s claims she was subjected to sexual molestation and deliberate molestation by Assange. The other woman in her 20s claims Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping.
-
Assange explains that he had a very short relationship with one of the women while he was living at her appartment during the seminar which the woman was hosting for her political movement.
-
The youngest of the two women, stated to the police She sought out Assange after viewing him on TV and media, therefore went to the seminar The two of them had a "sexual encounter" under their first meeting, in a cinema. Two days later they had protected sex in her apartment outside of Stockholm. The woman claims that she had awoken the next morning to find Assange having sex with her without a condom.
-
Assange and the woman left on good terms and she even paid for his train ticket back to Stockholm the next day. But the drama started when Assange didn't contact her back after a few days as he had "promised" to her.
-
The Younger Woman had called the office of The older Woman, who had organized the seminar, in hopes of getting hold of Assange. During their talk they both realized that they both had sexual relations with Assange during his stay in Stockholm.
-
The two Women confronted Assange and asked him to take a STD Test to prove that he was clean. The younger of the two women was extremely anxious about getting HIV but Assange refused to take the test , and thus the two women took their "case" to the police.
-
Assange Lawyer said " I don’t believe Miss B felt she had been raped until she went to the police station. She was encouraged by a policewoman and a junior female prosecutor to think that way. While I don’t think there was any conspiracy, Julian says he is being victimised because of his role with WikiLeaks. The fact that he has a high profile has made him a target for opponents."
-
Assange tried to contact the Stockholm Police several times in hopes of clearing the "case" against him up, but had not luck getting in contact.
All in all i think its two women who felt they were betrayed and wanted to have their revenge. With the delusional help from the police that over-blew the initial details of the case, the two believed that Assange deserves to be claimed a rapist and sexual assaulter for the "emotional damage" he had caused them.
38
I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know whether your legal conclusion is correct, regardless your summary of claims made against Assange is lacking some key points. You need to add those claims found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
If what they say is true (and he disputes this), he was "violent" to at least one of the girls, and violent to both if you count the fact they both made it clear they didn't want unprotected sex but somehow he succeeded to do so in both cases.
Just in terms of class, if the claims are true it is clear he is no gentleman.
10
While in general I agree with you.
Just in terms of class ... it is clear he is no gentleman.
Being a narcissistic asshole is no crime.
4
Good point.
1
[deleted]
1
Can you site sources for those reading here?
This is generally what I've been reading, but never heard anything with this amount of detail. I'll research it as well. :)
3
Fuck Swedish bitches, like a boss.
Also, it would be no suprise if the inital cops and prosecutors of Sweden didnt recognize his name and thought it was some schmuck.
1
Since we're in a thread about sensationalist journalism, I'd like to point out that your description is a perfect example of biased reporting. Your use of scare quotes is the easiest to pick out, but you (and Assange's lawyer) also make efforts to demean these types of rape charges into only being tools for revenge.
When it comes to deciding who did what, I'm convinced that bystanders like us will simply do a bad job at analyzing it. Yes, the women could be falsifying accounts of what happened. But: Assange could've torn his condom off with one woman and similarly not worn a condom while he had sex with the other woman while she was sleeping.
While I am worried whether the Swedish legal system will handle this without bias, I'm certain that biasing our repeating of the story does no one any good.
0
There is a difference between biased reporting and factual reporting, nothing i wrote is against facts that i have read up on, In no place except in the conclusion, which is usually an opinion of the writer that will always be biased, is there non factual information. NOW does it mean im right ? NO but equally it doesn't mean im wrong as the case is still going, i made a BIASED conclusion based upon the facts that have been laid out before me. Your judgment on that alone is wrong, you can sincerely disagree but to be against my choice of expressing my opinion is where it goes wrong.
News Media shouldn't have biased or even unbiased reporting, they should simply do factual reporting. There is no way a human being can be unbiased in anything, there is always a slight leaning to either ends of the conclusion, the mistake is when we argue that they should be unbiased instead of actually just being factual. The news gives us facts , we determine the conclusion, whirl the current trend in the us is that the news gives us the conclusion and we try to find facts.
If you have information that support the case of the two females please lay it out in front of my eyes so i can add it to the reasons of how i determine my conclusion.
1
Fuck that, those two women should be raped for real, buy a sweaty old man in an alley where they aren't sure they're going to live through the ordeal.
Not what appears to be consensual sex until several days after.
-3
I'm shocked at the downvotes here about reasonable statements of discomfort with Julian Assange, the person (as opposed to Julian Assange, the deeds).
I know that we're excited about the possibility of a new era of the relationship between governments and their subjects, but this hero worship can easily veer into a personality cult.
Also, I quote The Guardian: But after Assange's period in jail last week, the focus was switching. In today's Guardian editorial, the newspaper explained why it had chosen to publish the sexual misconduct allegations in detail: "It is unusual for a sex-offence case to be presented outside of the judicial process in such a manner, but then it is unheard of for a defendant, his legal team and supporters to so vehemently and publicly attack women at the heart of a rape case."
33
That's possibly because most people wouldn't actually categorize what's being described as rape.
5
I suggest you read this, before you make such a remark: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden. And, in case you weren't aware of it, The Guardian has assisted with the dissemination of the Wikileaks info, and in no way shouild you be foolish enough to think that they would be part of a deliberate smear campaign against Assange. It seems that they are genuinely upset that Assange's people have resorted to the same tactics of smearing the victim that the lawyers for any frat boy would use in the same circumstances. This is not to say that I know that Assange is guilty - I don't. But can we at least dispense with hubris and agree that none of us knows enough to either assume innocence or guilt?
1
[deleted]
4
That's the very article I read that lead me to leave the comment.
I don't think the Guardian are part of a smear campaign. It looks like point you're trying to make is that The Guardan assisted Assange in releasing the cables and now one of their reporters has written a piece that is critical of Assange or his lawyers in some aspect of the trial and so therefore.... what? Therefore they are right? If that's your reasoning it's severely flawed. Whether the Guardian are Assanges BFF's or not doesn't make any article they write about the sexual misconduct accusations any more or less true, unless we're operating at the level of high school children where if your friend says something bad about you it must be oh so true.
After hearing the allegations, everyone is able to determine for themselves whether something is rape or not. That determination has nothing to do with whether the Guardian are Assange's friends or not. Most people I know, after hearing the allegations, would not categorize them as rape.
But can we at least dispense with hubris and agree that none of us knows enough to either assume innocence or guilt?
I can agree that if he (or anyone else) is guilty of those particular allegations, most people would not categorize him as a rapist and nor would they categorize what occurred as rape.
2
It looks like point you're trying to make is that The Guardan assisted Assange in releasing the cables and now one of their reporters has written a piece that is critical of Assange or his lawyers in some aspect of the trial and so therefore.... what Therefore they are right?
Cue sound of Family Feud buzzer here...no, my point is that you can't dismiss them as part of the smear campaign that people seem to assume must come from any reporting of the case. Get it? No? Too bad.
1
If those acts were rape, we are all rapists!
1
No, actually. When I've been asked to stop, I stopped. When the condom has come off, I've stopped. Many, many people consider what's being alleged to be rape.
2
would upvote again if i could.
2
Assange was willing to answer the questions about the case. He was willing to even after the reporter says "forcibly spreading their legs", but he doesn't stop there and keeps going. It could have been a legitimate question, the reporter was just too interested in shock value over information.
30
[deleted]
29
[deleted]
-2
Honestly he did the only thing that would even be close to saving himself. The question was itself so graphic that no matter what he answers, the way the quote will be used will be, 'Assange denies holding down the accuser and penetrating her....' and on. The question is itself an accusation that will be used in the same manner Glenn Beck 'asks' questions.
Funny that his question started professionally enough, then he was like "Quick, add a bunch of graphic imagery for no reason!"
Seriously, at first, I didn't understand where the "tabloid schmuck" comment would come from, this seems like a perfectly normal question, then he started saying that shit.
[deleted]
Isn't that a bit like using the "No offence but, <incredibly offensive statement>" template?
No offense, but you're a knob-gobbling ass clown.
Empty phrase.
Right, but it was the manner in which he asked. He could have left off the end bits there and had a perfectly valid question, which to my understanding Assange would have been willing to answer.
That doesn't make it right of him to ask. If you have to apologize for asking your question before you ask it you may not want to even ask it.
If your job depends on spreading libelous rumors, time to get a new job. Since he's in England, Assange would be well within his rights to sue the man for that, and the man would be responsible for proving his innocence, at grotesque expense, and then pay for the rest of his life if he lost.
If you have to open a question with an apology, then you have no business asking it.
What was it the interviewer said? "I meant no insult by it, it's just a step we hadn't gone yet" or something, I can't hear too clearly on this. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? A step we haven't gone... a step further toward the gutter and character assassination. Gotcha.
Who's cock did you suck to get this Reddit account?
huh?
I think he was perfectly entitled to ask the questions - and indeed I think there is legitimate public interest in the matter - but he was incredibly unskilled in the way in which he asked them.
Right, that's what I basically meant, was that the question started off as a perfectly normal question given the situation, but then he started the sensationalism, which if I were in Assange's shoe's I'm not sure I would walk off in a huff, but I would definitely say, "Come on, man, why you gotta be that way".
bah. His whinny tone was completely disingenuous. "I'm sorry I really reaaaaaally have to do this..... I mean..... I was in court each time.. making me an authority who can say what I'm about to and lend it the proper credibility..... as I've been in court each time ... sometime somewhere there have been allegations you ripped her cunt fisting her as she cried in terror for her mother.."
Assange is not an idiot and won't be baited that way. You'd think they'd know it by now?
I guarantee there was no "talk" of "forcible spreading of legs" - the courtroom hearings thus far were regarding bail and extradition
Yeah not surprised that reporter was a slimeball employing cheaply transparent "doublespeak" tactics.
Based on this clip and the CNN clip though I think it fair to say that Assange gets a "tell" on his face each time he's about to walk out of a bullshit interview. He see's it comming and waits out those few extra seconds required of them to hang themselves as he kind of just glares at them. I dunno why but I find it hilarious.
PS: Would be great if someone edited these interviews to have these "reporters" dressed in evil clown costumers.
Imagine her horror at getting into bed with a man and removing her clothes only to have him violate her with his penis.
Edit: Incorrect info, see replies below.
I'm not sure if bail hearings in the UK are similar or not to those in Canada. But here in Canada the Crown will go over most evidence and put witnesses on the stand to give general outlines of the crime/crimes. At least, that has been the way it has been for the 4 or 5 bail hearings I've witnessed. This lets the judge have a better gauge as to whether bail should be granted or not.
So if the process is similar, it is likely victims or statements about what a victim will testify to were given. This would be where the allegation the reporter spoke of would come from.
Also, since the evidence is presented pre-trial, the media cannot report on what was said at the bail hearing. Only the name of the accused, charges and the result of the hearing would be allowed to be printed/broadcast. Again, this is how it works here in Canada so there may be significant differences.
[deleted]
Why, its not like they have researched anything about the man or did any work to understand how he might answer.
The reason is thus: viewers will hyperfocus on that imagery, physiological and emotional responses will occur, and nothing regarding Wkileaks or anything of importance will be of interest - the phrasing of that question will have made their minds for them...hence, tabloid shmuck.
It was a loaded question.
Can anyone write down the conversation in the video? I am not a native english speaker and cant understand sometimes what the reporter is saying.
thanks
"There was talk of forcibly spreading her legs.."
By whom? Some guy in the gallery? Maybe the reporter said it to his cameraman. It's the "some people say" version of interviews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
Some people say ew73 has not stopped beating his wife. Do you deny these allegations?
tabloid schmuck
The only appropriate response to the "is the answer to my next question the same as this" type of question.
The joke's on you, I'm not married!
ew73 claims to beat his girlfriend.
So you don't deny these allegations. That's sad. Very, very sad.
[deleted]
So you're admitting the marriage license was a fake then! Unfortunately we're out of time, so were going to have to leave it here.. back to Tom with the weather.
[deleted]
HAHAHAHA! Victory!
Forever alone.
So you've KILLED your wife?
I heard somewhere that Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990 - and he won't even deny it!
There's nothing to deny, it was actually a little boy.
Nah - I heard it was "98.
But that doesn't explain why beck won't address the allegations...
I'm saying Yurphurp sodomizes young puppies in front of a paying audience. Some people say he charges $10 bucks a head, with every $2 dollars of that going to an education based charity called http://www.donorschoose.org/, When $500 dollars is raised he will then do an AMA at the request of his ravaging Reddit followers.
Oh god. How do you KNOW?!
Mu.
He definitely hasn't.
The Swedish police investigation was leaked earlier today. See e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
I went over the story, and I have to say, it makes Julian Assange seem like fucking James Bond. He's pissing off governments, having sex left and right...all he needs now is a chase scene ending with a pithy pun about his pursuer's death.
It makes him sound like a James Bond villain you mean.
What I don't understand is that we're supposed to believe that while fucking "miss A" with a condom, Assenage decides to break it so he can ejaculate inside her? What the fuck for? Unless he was trying to have more children or deliberately infect her with something, why would he do this? People like sex without a condom because it feels better. Ripping it would be the worst of both worlds: no feeling and no protection. Sorry there's no way he intentionally sabotaged the condom. How the fuck would she know anyway?
[deleted]
Here is another one on "some people say" from CNN.
It's in the Swedish police files I believe.
The Guardian decided to publish since Assange and his defence have been publicly attacking the women. Quite a detailed article clicky.
I have not watched a major news show in over three years now. Man I don't miss that shit.
It was the prosecutor repeating what he was told by the accusers.
Right, the best thing to do would be to say nothing, which is what he did. Good choice by Assange here. The "schmuck" in question was trolling Assange by saying unnecessarily graphic things. This is akin to how some policemen or border officers ask questions that attempt to make those being questioned slip up and incriminate themselves. Anything that Assange might say "can and will be used" against him at this point.
Not only that, but the way lawyers use forcibly and the way people think of forcibly - can be two different things. For lawyers force covers a HUGE range of stuff that most ordinary people wouldn't consider force. Except physics majors perhaps.
A robber that picks a lock and a robber that sets an explosive charge disintigrating the back door both "forcibly" enter a home
Allegations are that he had sex with one of the women while she was asleep.
Query: are you saying that that satisfies or doesn't satisfy forcibly?
Honestly, maybe you watch to much of that sleep porn online, because ... well, have you ever tried to have sex with someone?
Also, counter-allegations include evidence that the accuser you mention stated in her own words in text messages that she was "half-asleep" and not asleep.
Moreover, I describe myself as half-asleep at any point before I have my coffee.
I guess I just don't understand what implication you're trying to make from your statement.
I'm saying what the police report says.
But go on, keep defending him. Rape doesn't count if the "great Assange" did it. Why did he run? If he's so fucking innocent, why did he run?
Yep, seems like a trap question
upvote for "It's a trap!"
Yeah, the question was second only to that classic unanswerable
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
[deleted]
Although I don't blame him for walking out, I think he could have simply answered the question entirely with reference to the "Who are you claiming has been applying unduly influence?" part.
Glenn Beck Raped, and killed a girl?
actually the biggest issue is the legal one. he is awaiting trial over those accusations. It would be at least stupid to answer any detailed question regarding the issue or even more the actual "rape", even denying it, without his lawyer (actually at all) as it could be used in court.
of course in a second plane there is the thing on how the newspapers would quote him.
thats why its the first rule of trial court: "you dont talk about ongoing trials"... its also the second rule.
and the schmuck knows this perfectly... so this was 100% on purpose.
Assange was very intelligen to have spotted it and reacted perfectly
It's called a "leading question"
Frankly, no idea why he continues to go on tv with these charges against him.
some people say he's a media whore who's sources of funding are slowly but surely being taken down so that he'll be an easy target for the US to incarcerate.
Can you clarify? From my experience, Beck only interviews those who are on his side of the fence already. I've never seen him do a "difficult" interview. A better example would be O'Reilly perhaps?
The question was intentionally phrased that way and I would have done the same as Assange did. The question was not deserving of an answer.
look, the rape allegations are relevant news. the fact that assange is the public face of wikileaks, which does good things, has NOTHING to do with whether or not he actually used coercive force to have sex with someone. he could have done both! we don't know!
dismissing the mere possibility that the rapes occurred shows no respect to the women who were possibly hurt, and is an illustration of the reason why women who get raped are often afraid to come forward.
[deleted]
it gives you the right to have the case investigated in a serious manner. women don't just claim rape for the hell of it. it's not a fun thing to go through. as we see in this case, it can lead to a lot of people attacking them, shaming them or dismissing them.
you're asking for immediate evidence of guilt presented to the public at large, which is not the way the legal system works. people have chosen to put intense critical pressure on the women in this case, before it goes to trial or evidence is heard. when a society does this, it sends a strong message that rape victims are not important and that coming forward if you've been raped will probably lead to some more traumatic things happening to you.
[deleted]
I have two distinct problems with your statement
It is hardly dismissing the allegations to not answer a ridiculously leading question that is designed to create a cheap and leading quote regardless of the answer given
The fact that this story is getting so much play in the media has, if anything, been detrimental to the privacy and rights of the accusers. They are being harassed due to the intense scrutiny of the case. If this had been left as a matter for the proper authorities, it's hard to believe that they would have received the same level of attention.