.

There is an interesting editorial by Katherine Viner, editor-in-chief, in this morning’s edition of the Guardian.

Viner writes, inter alia :


• « The act under which Assange was charged allows no defence in the public interest »

• « Journalists are in physical and legal peril across the world … deaths of more than 100 journalists in Gaza since the war began. »

• « … closed-door trial of the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich, who is accused by Russia of spying, charges that he, his employer and the US government have described as politically motivated. And, in India, the novelist Arundhati Roy, an outspoken critic of the prime minister, Narendra Modi, is being prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation for comments made about Kashmir in 2010. »

• « With the far right on the rise, and the spectre of a Trump presidency on the horizon after the alarming TV debate with Joe Biden on Thursday night, things could get worse for the free press. It’s vital we stand up for it. »
.

So, let’s not focus on Julian Assange. He is not the problem. He is the finger that points to the problem.

The problem is disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and deadly attacks against journalists and the media that are threatening the freedom of the press worldwide :

Here is what a seasoned journalist has to say about the prospects of his profession :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13VJyqgZqGk

.

Hi BP,

I didn't agree with “some things do need to remain confidential” as a broad principle. I assume you believe government with its law making authority should be the final arbitrator of what is "confidential", allowing for legal interpretation of the law. Your last post seems to be in opposition to that notion of government as the final arbitrator, wanting an allowance for "freedom of the press" with its public interest and a right to know provisions. If you apply the principal of confidentiality then Assange and others are guilty, but if its freedom of press with a right to know, then Assange and others are not guilty. It can't be both, how do you strike a balance between the two?

Hi Banjo Patterson,

"The problem is disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and deadly attacks against journalists and the media that are threatening the freedom of the press worldwide:"

Well the ones in Gaza were assassinations.
I watched your video, and I'm not sure I liked what he said about 'remaking journalism'.
I just want the facts, I don't really care about the person writing its personal opinion.
And to be honest with you, I'm not sure what the 'journalism' teachers are teaching these young people.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xf4MBJmy_E

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of this kind of rubbish journalism.
It's a journalists job to research things properly to present to the public to make their own opinion on, not the journalists job to 'sell you their opinion'.

Attacking the people they interview is like the absolute lowest form of human behavior to me.
She only went there to write a 'gotcha hit piece'
I'm sick of these people, they deserve to be smacked quiet, and I'm glad Tucker put her in her place.

They act like children not adults and they expect to be respected.
I hate this kind of behaviour, and I would ban all these people from journalism.

It's not journalism, it's teenage school yard bitch fests dragged into the adult world.

So yep, I'm all for attacking journalists myself when they act this way.
If we set the bar so low it's no wonder they feed us a diet of sub-par rubbish.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/29/the-week-in-parliament-the-theoretical-impossibility-of-tucker-carlson-and-nuclear-tensions-simmer-in-coalition-ranks

"Far-right provocateur ducks cocktail party, Climate 200 takes aim at fresh electoral targets and Labor MP stumbles into a nest of Nats"

It's the leftwing woke journalists that are causing the divisiveness as much as anyone.

It's just like Hilary Clinton calling Americans 'deplorables'.

These people are happy to insult Australians who hold different views to them, and I'm sick of all the diviseness and looking down there noses at others...

It's ok if I do it, I'm just a reader, commenter, citizen, but these people are supposed to present facts and be impartial, and I'm sick of their divisiveness BS. I've haddit with them and their teachers.

Why is he 'Far-right provocateur'.
He was a more highly regarded journalist than any of them writing about him.
Is it just automatic seething hatred from university indoctrinated children, or do we actually not have any adult non-woke non-retarded journalists in the country?

Only 8 posters interested in this.

It is said that St Julian will make millions by selling his story as a book and movie and that he'll be able to charge 6-figure sums to give talks to the usual fools who fall for this type of charade.

There are laws in Australia about criminals making money by selling the story about their crimes. And Assange has already admitted he's a criminal.

Hands up all those who think this milquetoast excuse for a government will doing anything to enforce that law.