Julian Assange Threatened To Sue Guardian For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables: Vanity Fair

[Robb]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/julian-assange-threatened_n_805123.html">Julian Assange Threatened To Sue Guardian For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables: Vanity Fair

Julian Assange threatened to sue The Guardian unless the paper ceased its plans to published the State Department cables the WikiLeaks chief had given it, a Vanity Fair piece released Thursday reveals.

(snip)

However, the Guardian caught what it felt was a big break: unbeknownst to Assange, a former WikiLeaks volunteer had leaked the State Department cables to British freedom of information activist and journalist Heather Brooke, who had been instrumental in exposing the scandal over politician's expense accounts that rocked Britain in 2009. Leigh convinced Brooke to work with the Guardian, and the paper considered itself released from its pledge not to publish until Assange's say-so.

When Assange discovered that the Guardian had obtained the documents, had passed them on to other media outlets, including the New York Times, and was poised to publish them, he raced into the paper's headquarters and made his threat of a suit:

...Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier...He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents...enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released...."

Good read. Vanity Fair piece itself http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102">here.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Wow

K/R

[nashville_brook]

3. i have to ask...is that the Snuggles bear?

[PBS Poll-435]

6. Yep!

:)

[upi402]

2. Darryl Issa will investigate Vanity Fair next

Vanity Fair does investigative journalism and Repukes fear that stuff.

[msanthrope]

4. "had a financial interest in how and when it was released...."

How completely unsurprising to find out it's about the money.

Other disgusting things---


"As a result of the funding drive, says Kristinn Hrafnsson, by early 2010 WikiLeaks had accumulated roughly $1 million in its accounts, collected mainly by a German foundation."

And not a dime to Bradley Manning's defense fund, as promised.


Of course, Assange is all about protecting Afghan civilians, right???

"Associates say that Assange dismissed the need for editorial care, even as they urged him to take the task more seriously. Smári McCarthy, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, told The Independent in October that there were “serious disagreements over the decision not to redact the names of Afghan civilians.”"

Posters should read the article for how Iraqi civilian names weren't redacted, either--even though Iraq Body Count has requested that it be done....

[Robb]

13. It's interesting, because the narrative has been that the papers did the redacting, not Wikileaks

...and the quality of the redactions (or lack thereof) has been hung around the necks of the Guardian et al. That it was a collaborative effort that ultimately became contentious is very important, I believe.

[msanthrope]

15. Indeed, I think that's an essential point that should be explored.

Were civilians' names not redacted because of Julian Assange? Sort of undermines the claims that this is for the benefit of those same civilians.

[EFerrari]

24. You two are jumbling a lot of different things.

The papers were responsible for choosing and redacting the cables in cablegate.

[Robb]

27. That wasn't my take from this piece, but I'll read it again.

[EFerrari]

28. Wikileaks was criticized (by Greenwald, others) for not redacting

carefully enough and they responded by changing their process for cablegate. I think I read that in one of Greenwald's columns but it is the case that they gave the files to those papers to pick from, to redact, in the case of the NYTs, to negotiate redactions with the White House. My understanding is, Wikileaks isn't even posting the cables to their own site until they have been published first by one of the papers they are working with.

[Robb]

31. I stand corrected, you're absolutely right.

[Abq_Sarah]

5. He "owned" the information?

Gee.. and here I thought his mission was to make sure no one "owned" information.

[msanthrope]

8. I think his mission is "Julian Assange, me, myself, and I." n/t

[sendero]

36. People who believe this sort ...

.. of story because they WANT TO amuse me.

This is hearsay by a hardly disinterested party, funneled through other hardly disinterested parties.

I'm sure no one in the media would just make shit up, naw that never happens.

[SidDithers]

7. K&R....

St. Julian is an asshat.

Sid

[superduperfarleft]

9. What does this have to do with the importance of wikileaks?

Why are the people who clearly have an issue with the leaks themselves bothering to focus on Assange? I could care less who's in charge of wikileaks, they're still a great organization that have many more activists on staff than just Assange.

[Robb]

10. And good thing, too. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

12. bah hahahaha. love it. lol. ah ha. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. Arrggh! The irony! It burns!

:rofl:

[yodermon]

17. The concept and implementation of WikiLeaks is much bigger than Julian Fucking Assange.

[superduperfarleft]

18. Some of us have repeatedly tried to point that out.

It doesn't always go so well.

[cali]

19. exactly. he's an asshole who loves the limelight. so what?

[Luminous Animal]

43. You know, in my little town in rural Michagan, I'd hear similar about MLK from neighbors

and the pulpit. Fortunately, I had parents who were smarter than them.

[girl gone mad]

20. Reads like a half-baked hit piece on Assange.

Why the gratuitous insults to the man's physical appearance? That completely undermines the credibility of the reporter's accusations.

The breathless tone throughout the piece makes it all but unreadable to me.

Is that Justin Bieber on the cover? What happened to Vanity Fair? I sense some old media jealousy at work here.

[fascisthunter]

22. because it is

not surprised

[Robb]

23. Under the bus w' ye, Vanity Fair!

:D

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[walldude]

29. LMAO.. yeah because "Vanity Fair" is such a big supporter

of progressive values and such an important piece of political journalism. Next week Justin Bieber is on the cover! I can't wait to see his take on Wikileaks.

[Luminous Animal]

41. The Vanity Fair article is not so bad and I urge anyone who has an opinion on this to read it.

The Huff Post article? The usual lurid tabloid crap.

[EFerrari]

26. The piece sort of peters out. Not one of their best efforts. n/t

[walldude]

21. Wow. Just wow.

So now we are digging really deep. Why is this story just coming out now? According to the article this happened last summer. I'd also like to see the direct quotes Assange made. I notice there is not a single direct quote of him saying " he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released...." I mean if he stormed into the Guardian offices and made such outrageous claims, someone must have heard him. So why isn't he quoted?

IMHO Assange is in it for whatever he's in it for, Wikileaks itself and the furor behind it is about more than some guy with a computer and some connections.

But go ahead with the attacks, I mean if there is one thing we need more of it's secrecy and coverups. More hidden policies and classified documents. For some reason a government that produces 50 million classified documents a year is just too fucking transparent.

[TorchTheWitch]

32. if the author didn't hear him say these things

then the author can't directly quote him. That's how journalism works. I'm not sure why anyone would find that a problem. That's as it should be.

[superduperfarleft]

33. "Some people say...." n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

37. huh?

Why would such a thing as that be in quotes if it isn't attributed to something someone said to the author, and why would it be considered appropriate journalism?

Your reply to my post makes no sense. Care to explain?

[Odin2005]

30. Hit-piece.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. If only irony were painful.

[superduperfarleft]

35. Yeah, there's a lot of irony in this thread. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

38. The Guardian is publishing a book titled "The Rise and Fall of Wikileaks... hmm.

This is not a horrible article but it certainly spends pages and pages puffing up The Guardian (i.e.,the traditional media).

Here is another side...

http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir01052011.html

[Union Scribe]

40. The Guardian stinks to high heaven in all of this.

Thanks for the link. THAT was an excellent article.

[Luminous Animal]

39. And apparently Wikileaks threat won. Because the Guardian is following the guidelines to the

original contract.

[Luminous Animal]

42. And Assange and Wikileaks won the stand down.

Not mentioned in either the HuffPo piece or the Vanity Fair article, Assange an Wikileaks ultimately prevailed and the Guardian has released info based on the original contract.

How do we know that? We witness it with our own eyes.

[PBS Poll-435]

44. You said the same thing 16 minutes ago

The article shows the true intent and profit motive for Mr. Assange.

(What book deal?)

[Luminous Animal]

45. This one.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Secrecy-Rise-Fall-WikiLeaks/dp/0852652399

[Luminous Animal]

46. What true intent?

[PBS Poll-435]

47. Notoriety

And a few simoleons.

[Bonobo]

48. So? eom