"It is said", by whom, YOU. Mr Mhaze Trumpster, you and your cronies have a lot to say at party meetings down there in that Far Right Bunker of yours, you emerge, and then post party rants on this forum. If Assange sells his story, good luck to him, you're only jello because no one would give two bob for your story. Chill out old salt, and have a couple more coffin nails and relax while you still can.

.

Dear Paul,

.

You wrote :

1. « 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? »
.

Life is full of contradictions, Paul, and it’s difficult to find our way out of the maze. The best bet, in my opinion, is to follow the path that best respects the public interest as described by Australia's Right to Know (ARTK) alliance (cf., my post on top of page 11 of this thread).

The public has a right to know if there is evidence of war crimes having been committed. It is not in their best interests for this to be ignored.

As Katherine Viner, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, pointed out: the act under which Assange was charged allows no defence in the public interest.
.

2. « 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. »

Dictatorships such as in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. exercise full control over the media and brainwash their populations with whatever propaganda suits their purpose.

Democracies depend not only on government-controlled media but also on so-called “free media”, including, increasingly, social media, for information.

The US Pentagon blamed the media for the loss of the Vietnam War in 1954–1975. Since then, the US military and many nations in the “free world” only allow strictly limited access and only by certified war correspondents to their military operations.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

That being the case, it is difficult to imagine how any covert operations could possibly become known to the public – if it were not for a few, very rare individuals such as the two vigilantes, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

Do I “believe government with its law-making authority should be the final arbitrator of what is "confidential" ?

Theoretically, it should. But I am not foolish enough to “believe” it would (I try to limit my beliefs to a strict minimum). I find it difficult to imagine any government having committed or condoned war crimes – or any other crimes, for that matter – arbitrating in favour of the revelation of their crimes or cover-ups to the public.

Unless someone comes up with a better idea, I guess we’ll just have to hope that someone might have the courage to blow the whistle when something like that occurs.

.

Thanks Banjo for your response,

Starting from the end first; "I guess we’ll just have to hope that someone might have the courage to blow the whistle when something like that occurs." AND THANK YOU JULIAN ASSANGE.

It's absurd to think crimes committed by government and its functionaries would be freely admitted and fairly prosecuted by government. It ain't gonar happen in our lifetime! Unless of course you have the above, or some independent commission to investigate and prosecute the guilty.

The public interest, and the public's right to know, some might see that as "the busybody rule" Why, it don't concern the public, why do they need to know, if a couple of the lads shoot some goat farmer in Afghanistan, that's war, tough sh!t, its all for the greater good, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette! Of course I don't agree with that, but its often the attitude peddled by some on this very forum. Assange was sticking his nose in where it did't belong. Should have minded his own business, therefore he got what he deserved.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

You wrote :

« I just want the facts, I don't really care about the person writing its personal opinion … I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of this kind of rubbish journalism.

It's a journalist's job to research things properly to present to the public to make their own opinion on, not the journalist's job to 'sell you their opinion »
.

I think it is necessary to examine what we mean by journalism, Armchair Critic.

Journalism is a generic term that, like most professions, is composed of various specialised tasks that require different technical, artistic, communicational, and managerial competencies.

The OED defines it as “the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business”.

As for writing, which you find so distasteful, there are basically three different types of articles written by three different types of journalists : reporters, editorialists and editors.

Reporters report the news and stick to the facts and nothing but the facts as objectively as possible. Editorialists express their personal opinions as clearly and comprehensively as possible. Editors express the opinion of the newspaper or magazine on some current topic considered to be of major importance.

As for Tucker Carlson whom you mentioned and for whom you posted a video, this is what the Britannica has to say about his promotion of the replacement theory as a legitimate political viewpoint :

« … the claim that national governments or unspecified elites are secretly directing the replacement and eventual elimination of whites has circulated among fringe groups of white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other right-wing extremists since at least the late 19th century.

The replacement fantasy received much wider attention in the early 21st century with the publication of Le Grand Remplacement (2011), by the French writer and activist Renaud Camus.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Right-wing media personalities, including Fox News commentators Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, also attested to the conspiracy, though in ostensibly milder language that did not directly refer to race or explicitly invoke anti-Semitism. Thus, Carlson claimed that liberal Democrats were attempting to replace “you” (the viewer)—implicitly understood to be white—with immigrants from “Third World” (developing) countries—implicitly understood to be non-white—in order to create a permanent electoral majority loyal to the Democratic Party. Carlson in particular was intent on promoting replacement theory as a legitimate political viewpoint, and it was a major theme of his talk show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, since the program’s launch in 2016. »

.