[Peace-discuss] Assange trial update, why DN is establishment media

Wed Sep 9 00:26:59 UTC 2020

Some more reports are coming out from today's Assange trial activity. You should 
expect to see at least some of this appear on the next batch of recommended videos 
for AOTA/NFN timeslots. I list the ones I saw and wrap up with a review of Democracy 
Now (DN) on this and their Navalny coverage from today.

-J

https://archive.vn/MGE8M
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/

Which includes the following:

> Magistrate Baraitser then made a statement about access to the court by remote
> hearing, by which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details had
> been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She had therefore
> revoked their access permissions.
> 
> As she spoke, we in the court had no idea what had happened, but outside some
> consternation was underway in that the online access of Amnesty International, of
> Reporters without Borders, of John Pilger and of forty others had been shut down.
> As these people were neither permitted to attend the court nor observe online,
> this was causing some consternation.
> 
> Baraitser went on to say that it was important that the hearing was public, but
> she should only agree remote access where it was “in the interests of justice”,
> and having considered it she had decided it was not. She explained this by stating
> that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could
> control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control
> their behaviour and this was not in the “interests of justice”.
> 
> Baraitser did not expand on what uncontrolled behaviour she anticipated from those
> viewing via the internet. It is certainly true that an observer from Amnesty
> sitting at home might be in their underwear, might be humming the complete
> soundtrack to Mamma Mia, or might fart loudly. Precisely why this would damage
> “the interests of justice” we are still left to ponder, with no further help from
> the magistrate. But evidently the interests of justice were, in her view, best
> served if almost nobody could examine the “justice” too closely.

Consortium News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSXNv-dnCA -- (21m 05s) Joe Lauria's report

The Grayzone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3LcmyZSWE -- (24m 09s) Anya Parampil interviews 
filmmaker Juan Passarelli who recently made "The War on Journalism: The Case of 
Julian Assange" (https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=gVoUPnXqvNE which runs 38m 26s)

acTVism
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UO8uJsYKZhI -- (3m)

RT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-LDvxa0D10 -- (2m) Julian Assange's father gives 
statement post-court hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPwCY-yBK6M -- (2h 41m 29s) Imperialism on Trial -- 
Free Julian Assange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRM53i4BAgs -- (5h 21m 55s) Day 2 live coverage 
outside court building (RUPTLY)

To anyone who questions the validity of hours of dead-roll footage of events: 
coverage like the above is what got RUPTLY the footage they captured of Assange's 
forceful eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy. No other news outlet did what RUPTLY 
did there. The other networks (even those with reporters in London) shamefully didn't 
show up and simply dead-roll a camera, even though the world was warned of this 
eviction event in advance from WikiLeaks via Twitter on April 4, 2019:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1113919962995884033
> BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that
> Julian Assange will be expelled within "hours to days" using  the #INAPapers
> offshore scandal as a pretext--and that it already has an agreement with the UK
> for his arrest.

If you think the world wasn't keeping a close eye on WikiLeaks' twitter.com feed, 
you're too naive to be taken seriously.

So when it came time to do their de minimis coverage of Assange getting kicked out of 
the embassy, the bulk of the media had to license footage from RUPTLY (RT's dead-roll 
camera outlet that often has no voiceover, just footage of events). Saying absolutely 
nothing about that event would have been too clear a sign that they're hiding 
relevant truths from their audience.

We see that same kind of coverage come up again in the Assange extradition hearing 
coverage. Here's an example from today's (2020-September-8) Democracy Now, covering 
the story in a way that could easily be confused as coming from any other 
establishment media outlet (yes, I'm calling DN 'establishment media'):

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/8/headlines/extradition_hearing_resumes_for_julian_assange_in_uk
> In Britain, the extradition hearing of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange resumed
> this week, after being delayed for months amid the pandemic. Assange is wanted in
> the U.S. for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and faces a 175-year
> sentence on espionage and hacking charges. As he arrived at the London courthouse,
> Assange was arrested on 18 new charges from a U.S. indictment filed in June. Legal
> observers say they were barred from the proceedings. Protests took place in London
> and in cities around the world in defense of Assange and press freedom. This is
> Julian Assange’s father John Shipton speaking Monday as he left the courthouse.
> 
> John Shipton: “I think the case is a fraud against the court. That’s what I think:
> fraud against the court applied by the American Department of Justice. Julian is
> an Australian citizen. The publications are in the United Kingdom. And yet he is
> kidnapped and judicially abducted to the United States to spend 175 years in
> jail.”

That's all of the coverage from today. Prior to this, the name "Assange" wasn't 
mentioned since July 29, 2020 (per 
https://www.democracynow.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=assange). You'd have to go 
back a lot further to understand from DN why this extradition is so important to 
journalism. To understand DN's choices, consider where DN gets its money -- Ford 
Foundation which also helps account for the establishment-friendly co-hosts like 
Nermeen Shaikh. Then you'll understand why DN will cover this case about as much as 
other establishment media outlets. Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, gets 
uncritical drumbeat coverage even as BLM appears to be largely a front for 
establishment interests.

One of the reasons Aaron Mate left DN was (according to what he told Jimmy Dore) DN's 
support for Russiagate, the ongoing baseless conspiracy theory that attempts to place 
the blame for anything establishment figures don't like on Russia. Russiagate began 
as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's unexpected second failed attempt at becoming 
POTUS. To date, every Russiagate story falls apart on close examination. But that 
doesn't stop establishment media from hyping the next chapter.

Today, DN Russiagated some more in their coverage of Alexei Navalny in 
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/8/headlines/alexei_navalny_out_of_induced_coma_as_he_continues_recovery_from_poisoning
> In Germany, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is out of an induced coma and
> responsive, according to the Berlin hospital treating him. Navalny, a vocal critic
> of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was poisoned last month with Novichok, a
> banned military-grade nerve agent, and airlifted to a hospital in Germany. The
> Kremlin has denied any responsibility for Navalny’s poisoning.

DN didn't bother explaining any of the reasonable uncertainties around how Navalny 
became ill, why a Russian national would be whisked away to Germany at all, and how 
Germany's insistence on Russia anything for Navalny's illness makes any sense. In 
this brief space DN also gets a more minor matter wrong as well -- Novichok is a set 
of poisons, not one specific poison.

There are good reasons to be skeptical of the Navalny poison narrative:

1. That narrative makes no sense, as Craig Murray points out in 
https://www.rt.com/russia/500013-navalny-targeted-state-western-narrative/

2. https://on.rt.com/aplg -- "Developers of ‘Novichok’ say Navalny's symptoms aren't 
consistent with poisoning by their deadly creation, reject German claims"

3. https://on.rt.com/apn4 -- "Omsk doctor who treated Navalny says if opposition 
figure was poisoned with Novichok, those around him must also be affected"

but you won't be bothered by any of those dissenting views if you get your news from 
establishment media, including Democracy Now.