That the TIME Magazine might not be impartial is no big news – after all it’s part of the CNN empire, long known for being close to the US establishment – but that it might carry out such blatant acts of partial journalism is something we transparency people take to heart.
One might wonder if the TIME list might be one-sided or at least ‘redacted’, as Bradley Manning, who scored more points than Julian Assange in the readers’ recent online poll, is not mentioned in the list of the 100 people just released yesterday. Then the proof of the hatred towards Assange is made clear by the article Germaine Greer, prominent feminist writer, wrote about Assange, who was included in the 2011 TIME 100 list.
Each entry in the final list – whether it is a celebrity, an activist, a footballer or a pop singer – was to be introduced by another personality, very often someone from the same industry. David Cameron received words of praise from Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Firth from Dame Helen Mirren, Gabrielle Cliffords from no less than Barack Obama and so forth.
All of the above linked by the undivided affection and admiration from the appointed writer. All of them apart from the Assange piece. Why didn’t TIME hire John Pilger, also Australian in case they wanted to keep the only similarity to the nationality, to write up the piece? Or even Daniel Ellsberg? Because they too are enemies of the establishment?
That Assange might not be widely liked is a well-known fact. He’s a bit of an acquired taste after all – or Marmite, if you like (either you love him or hate him). But what leaves us dumbfounded is how journalists and writers, even those renowned and revered like Germaine Greer, might resort to half-hatched jobs, poor in research, insight and capacity to see the person object of the piece from more than one point of view.
Let’s analyse the Greer piece. It doesn’t start well. She defines Julian Assange a ‘Muckraker’. Good, nothing is better than starting a piece by putting a negative label on someone you have probably not have met in person – or so we can assume.
She continues: ‘As long as he was an anonymous cybergeek, Julian Assange was a genius. Once he came in from cyberspace and set about the manipulation of media professionals, he was just another source, to be used and abused, diddled and discarded’
Assange has never manipulated the media. If he were, WikiLeaks would not have the huge number of media partners it currently does have (around 60 newspapers worldwide). Good old Greery must have read David Leigh’s aggressive Tweets and made assumptions as to the evil ways of l’Assange.
‘Assange, 39, did not choose to be the face of WikiLeaks’
He actually decided he would be the lightning bolt of the organisation – as he said in a few interviews. In addition, with his personality, who else can possibly be the face of the organisation?
‘It was decided that since he had less to lose than most of his anonymous co-geeks, having neither home nor chick nor child, he would be it’
He actually does have at least one confirmed child, Daniel, another highly intelligent and gifted individual. He might not have a relationship – we do not know with certainty and it is none of our business – but he does certainly have a close relationship with his mother, Christine, and many friends around the world who would be devastated at his untimely departure from this world. Therefore, to make him an unloved and unlovable person is very immature and speaks volumes of the understanding of human relationships in Greer’s psyche.
As for the chicks remark, how strange of a feminist to serve women with the same coin as served by men when expressing their rampant sexism. Unless it was an intentionally – but fallen flat – funny way from Greer to talk presumed Assangese?
‘Egregious to the last, he is convinced that his prosecution for rape in the Swedish courts was engineered by vengeful U.S. intelligence, unable to grasp the plain fact that his callous treatment made two women angry enough to seek redress’
Now, firstly there are no charges. The whole extradition saga centres on Swedish prosecutors wanting Assange for interrogation, as they’ve been unable to do so for several reasons (an initial interrogation was carried out though). Let’s not get into the conspiracy theories but let’s move on to the callous treatment Assange has apparently perpetrated. It’s been discussed many times by independent media how the accusations are, if looked at more attentively, baseless and possibly simply fruit of a disgruntled ex-lover, Miss A. Greer also ignores the fact that the two claimants were in cahoots to fleece as much money as possible off media with their story of ruined sexual integrity and trophy photos. In fact, in respect to this last item, Greer ignores that Miss A had taken pictures of naked Assange in her own bed during one of the alleged rapes. Maybe Greer should revise her own idea of rape. I don’t know of any rape victim stopping the ‘proceedings’ to amiably take pictures of their attacker. Maybe Greer does?
I wonder what the editorial choice behind this might have been. Did the meeting go along the lines of ‘Ok, if we really must feature this Assange guy, at least let’s do it a negative piece. Who hates Assange? Feminists? Yes, let’s pick one and let’s let her write whatever she wants, no need to edit or fact-check. After all it’s Assange we’re talking about, the guy who rapes girls, steals national security secrets and can’t dance’.
The mainstream media really do have to stop writing so shoddily. Can they at least keep up the standards of research by sticking to facts and checking their sources? We are not asking for them to turn into Assange admirers but for them to become a proper opponent – if they really aim at informing the masses on the evil of Assange and WikiLeaks, as they’re so intently doing.
As for la Greer, shame on you, Germaine. You’re more than free to offer your opinion but at least please get yourself acquainted with the subject you write about. Do real journalists a favour. Thank you and à bientôt.
