Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Video: After warning her repeatedly, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange walked out on CNN's Atika Shubert when she refused to remain on-topic about the recent Iraq and Afghanistan War document releases.


WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Walks Out of CNN Interview

25 October 10

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+75 # sfrider 2010-10-25 16:15
Bravo, Julian!
 
 
+37 # herbert, delphine 2010-10-26 03:42
How did this woman ever get to go on camera? Congratulations to Julian Assange for his bravery on many fronts.
 
 
-6 # Charles Jannuzi 2010-10-27 03:59
Atika Shubert is just doing what she is told to do, to get that anchorwoman job on CNN-Intl. Walk offs typically play into the hands of the people who force these stupid questions. Atika Shubert is actually not a bad journalist--much better than many you see on TV. And she is bilingual in English and Indonesian, which helps in her coverage of SE Asia. But she has been sent to UK and London to groom her for anchor position.
 
 
+2 # Elin 2010-10-27 16:14
Quoting
How did this woman ever get to go on camera? Congratulations to Julian Assange for his bravery on many fronts.


Perhaps she she slept her way to the top, or that aside, her daddy gave at the office.
 
 
+13 # James Cremin 2010-10-26 10:21
I agree!!! Thanks.
 
 
+71 # Activista 2010-10-25 18:49
can not handle the message - so kill the messenger. Old media trick ...
 
 
+56 # Leo Ray Ingle 2010-10-25 20:23
That awful interviewer should be hung out to dry. Opportunism is never pretty.
I totally agree with Julian Assange that, with the deaths of thousands of people documented clearly, the personal attack line was incredibly vicious and stupid.
I suppose if an interviewer is known for being on the side of the military, they might get access there.
In the end, had she no decency, had she no shame.
 
 
+31 # Dr. Zorgon 2010-10-26 09:00
They will continue to persecute him as Americans always do it, with a sex scandal. That's the one thing Americans will burn anyone at the stake for, and it's very easy to either set up or lie about. Did she HAVE to ask this question (must pump up rating with sex!), but she seems to me like almost all journalists today: young, female, sexy, 25-35, and ignorant and serving the status quo. I see few serious, experienced people in journalism now, just young, pretty clueless girls. It's shameful.***This man has guts, and you can see the cost to him. She collects (an undeserved) paycheck.
 
 
+14 # Lola 2010-10-26 13:55
I take exception at just one part of your comment about Americans persecuting as they 'always' do. This only depends on who you are, examples: Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski, persecute. Republican senators and congressmen and pages, affairs and advances in public restrooms, not persecuted. G W Bush and Condi Rice, not persecuted, as a matter of fact, pretense it didn't happen.
 
 
+3 # Wynne Dimock 2010-10-28 08:11
Agree....gutsy guy who will be condemned by good ole USA as we continue to self-destruct in our massive denial.....unable to see the "cost to him," so clearly evident, she sadistically stabbed him over and over. Woe is us!
 
 
+50 # MAX WATTS 2010-10-25 20:53
is that all cnn wants to know about wikileaks ?
 
 
+43 # KayceW 2010-10-25 21:10
Why was a nit-wit like Atika Shubert allowed to interview this man? In the same vein, she would probably ask the Dali Lama if he still beats his wife.....

She belongs at FAUX NEWS.
 
 
+51 # Bethany G. 2010-10-25 21:20
Why are we not marching in the streets about these two wars? And why does the press (not all) continue to focus on all the wrong things? Our country seems stunningly lost!
 
 
+6 # Ellis D. Tripp 2010-10-27 07:27
Quoting
Why are we not marching in the streets about these two wars?


Because (1) there is no draft so students have no reason to be politically engaged. (2) the casualty figures are not high enough to get the attention of the American people. If we were seeing 400+ American deaths each week from these wars as we saw during the Vietnam war, these wars would have the attention of the Americans people in a much different manner.

Quoting
And why does the press (not all) continue to focus on all the wrong things?


Because America has ceased to be a democratic republic and is now (and has been since the end of WWII) is a corporate oligarchy. The mainstream news media is corporate owned and therefore will not criticize the genocidal aspects of American foreign policy because the corporate oligarchy - a large part of which is the military-industrial-congressional complex - derives massive revenue from these wars.
 
 
+47 # Tom Martin 2010-10-25 21:27
If this is what CNN is, through its shameful interviewer who ignored the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and tried to turn this interview into her own "Jerry Springer" show, then CNN must be blamed for our ongoing atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and ... you name the place!
 
 
+18 # amine 2010-10-25 21:30
to survive CNN need to play the establishment's .cable tv is propaganda
not the .
 
 
+39 # silversurfer 2010-10-25 21:36
The interviewer totally deserved it..CNN sucks. This is exactly what CNN and US wants...create negative feeling and show Julian in a bad image
 
 
+38 # Synthiman 2010-10-25 21:41
Right on, Julian!
 
 
+26 # Sven 2010-10-25 21:49
Karl Rove would be proud of her. She should go to work flipping burgers.
 
 
+25 # m5-mike 2010-10-25 21:51
Boring corporate media.
 
 
-51 # mstrpete 2010-10-25 21:59
What am I missing? Why is a question about whether his tenuous legal status in Sweden (did I get that right?) is a possible distraction to the work Wikileaks is doing a "vicious and stupid" attack? It strikes me as a legitimate question worthy of an answer, and he came off to me as somewhat of a d!&k.
 
 
-32 # ekratka 2010-10-26 06:41
I agree with you, mstrpete.
 
 
+7 # Lola 2010-10-26 13:58
You guys really don't get it?
 
 
+23 # carp 2010-10-26 07:33
Quoting
What am I missing? Why is a question about whether his tenuous legal status in Sweden (did I get that right?) is a possible distraction to the work Wikileaks is doing a "vicious and stupid" attack? It strikes me as a legitimate question worthy of an answer, and he came off to me as somewhat of a d!&k.


What is missing here is that Assange's legal residency problems are well documented. He was recently involved in a rape accusation and was completely exonerated. There has been vast reporting on whether Assange is an egomaniac. This is readily available press and has been for months. Assange was led to believe the interview was going to be able the recent dump of wikileaks of Iraqi civilian deaths and documentation of torture.
 
 
-4 # mstrpete 2010-10-26 09:45
Thank you for directly answering my question, (although the case against him has been re-opened). I can see the problem of being told an interview is on one topic, then the reporter switching gears.
 
 
+11 # AK Lorenzo 2010-10-26 13:57
i think the important thing is that whatever it is that Julian has done in his personal life, it doesn't mean anything in the context of the information released on Wikileaks and his job there. He could be having simultaneous, carnal relations with multiple under-aged Bonobo chimps and even though that could mean he has legal problems to deal with somewhere, if the information he is responsible for on Wikileaks (or wherever) is accurate, then his personal issues are irrelevant. In fact, even if Julian had gotten the info from known, proud terrorists dedicated to destroying the US down to every last pet and houseplant and was a member of the same terrorist groups himself, the sources and Julian's relation to the sources would be irrelevant to the specific issue of the information if the information is accurate. All that matters is the information! Julian or whoever's personalities and personal lives may be interesting for whatever reasons and possibly in need of legal review or restraint, but those are completely separate issues in the context of the information and its release. Distractions. One of America's most impressive products.
 
 
+30 # signalfire 2010-10-26 07:38
Ummmm, for the same reason that Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job (that wasn't anyone's business and had no bearing on his presidency), that's why. What part of character assassination do you not understand? He warned her three times and she couldn't think of another question to ask?
 
 
+25 # Kenneth F Rosen 2010-10-26 07:40
Quoting
What am I missing? Why is a question about whether his tenuous legal status in Sweden (did I get that right?) is a possible distraction to the work Wikileaks is doing a "vicious and stupid" attack? It strikes me as a legitimate question worthy of an answer, and he came off to me as somewhat of a d!&k.


How is it a legitimate question if she already knows the answer? It's a counter-attack, Atika trying to trap him into accepting her tautologies and thereby control her characterizatio n of him, like advancing pawn in a chess game. Not to mention wrapping herself in the offended woman flag. He warned her earnestly, somberly, once, twice, three times? Thousands of civilians slaughtered? "Disgusting," as he put it. Poor CNN.
 
 
-22 # mstrpete 2010-10-26 09:46
It's legitimate because the AUDIENCE may not know the answer. Isn't that the point of an interview?
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:17
Quoting
It's legitimate because the AUDIENCE may not know the answer. Isn't that the point of an interview?

Oh please. Maybe, just maybe, the audience, ANY audience just might not have a right to an answer to the question. Maybe, aside from non-relevent to the purpose of the interview, it's not your business to know.
 
 
+1 # Sterling 2010-10-29 18:31
The audience may not know how many times someone masturbates, is that a legitimate question?? There are lots of things that the audience does not know, an interview with Wikileaks about Wikileaks should be about Wikileaks not masturbation.
 
 
-26 # kelly 2010-10-26 08:16
I'm with you guys. This guy is haughty and seems too ready to think that without him the world would end. Ellsberg was self-effacing and understood that his effort was important but didn't let his ego get in the way of the message. Assange's life and exploits(and no, I am not talking about the stuff that was manufactured by the police in Sweden) are a part of who he is and is fair game because he makes it so. He always has made a point of making himself as big as his message. That's why a lot of his collegues are quitting Wikileaks and he's finding it harder and harder to find safe haven. I know I'll get a lot of negative feedback on this one but before I get called a right-wing bigot or "repug" or whatever you people use when you're using insulting terms, I am a Dem(100%), liberal and voted for Obama.
 
 
+25 # Sgt Cal 2010-10-26 10:11
What about THE STORY, you damned fools? We have elections on Tuesday, and the troops are letting us know that they and we were lied to by the very group of people that has an opportunity to get back to their own brand of "business as usual", and you care about some dork's personality problems? What's wrong with you?
 
 
+21 # Billsy 2010-10-26 10:57
Whether he seems haughty or not is a matter of personal character and not pertinent to the issue of inhumane american policy exposed by his work. This man is responsible for insights into disgusting pentagon activity and opinion, having taken tremendous personal risk to produce it and lives a very limited life as a result. Please let us not be distracted by petty character assassination. We need to end our military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and turn attention to severe domestic problems like unemployment and decaying infrastructure.
 
 
-5 # Elin 2010-10-26 15:53
"I know I'll get a lot of negative feedback on this one but before I get called a right-wing bigot or "repug" or whatever "YOU PEOPLE" use when you're using insulting terms..."

"YOU PEOPLE" that term always makes me cringe. It distances you from us from the start.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:22
Quoting
"I know I'll get a lot of negative feedback on this one but before I get called a right-wing bigot or "repug" or whatever "YOU PEOPLE" use when you're using insulting terms..."

"YOU PEOPLE" that term always makes me cringe. It distances you from us from the start.

Heck, I find it upsetting when you people talk about "you people"!
 
 
+6 # Ellis D. Tripp 2010-10-27 07:35
Assange's personal issues don't have jack sh*t to do with the contents of the wikileaks documents. Some people just aren't smart enough to determine this. The personal issues raised, whether real or not, are ad hominum arguments. This issue is not whether Assange is an egomaniac or whatever, it has to do with the information he released which shows that our government has - as it always does and despite whichever party is in office - is lying to us.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:21
For one thing Kelly, it's rather obvious that you have a problem with strong, confident and competent people like him. Kinda' scares you, huh? I don't give a damn about his ego, and he certainly has earned the right to have one, I just care about the truth and he delivers. What more could you want? It's not like he's running for office or should care a whit wether you like him or not. His message is big, big enough to pay attention to. I guess that gives him a lot of spot light.
You sound jealous.
Grow up.
 
 
+1 # Hors-D-whores 2010-10-29 00:36
In the history of our world, and this country not an exception, people that we today remember as heroes were often in their time demeaned, chastised, defamed and often died friendless and poor. Recently I was reading a bio on Thomas Paine, and it was painful to read that at the end of his life, he was buried on his own property because no cemetery would bury him.
i am in awe of people like Julian Asange who are giving up so much of their lives and security because they so vehemently believe that nothing matters but the facts and the truth.
I hope sincerely that he does not suffer too much, but I fear for him.
 
 
+17 # Sgt Cal 2010-10-26 10:09
Look at it like this: It's 1944. You get an opportunity to ask questions of a German newspaper concerning a story just published, unveiling the mass murder of Jews, gypsies, and handicapped people in the Nazi camps, and you ask the reporter about a zit on his face.
 
 
+33 # Bob Poyourow 2010-10-25 22:07
Amateur hour at CNN every hour.
 
 
+33 # gladys 2010-10-25 22:07
typically unfocused and off course interviewer - Bravo Julian indeed!!
 
 
+14 # Gurka 2010-10-25 22:11
Time to do away with "journalists" like this probably well paid distractor? For starters, don't waste our time with "news stories" like this one. We do very well without them. As to rape and women's rights etc, we can return to those topics later, there will be enough crossroads for that.
 
 
+33 # Progressive_Patriot 2010-10-25 22:17
More people should walk out of interviews when they start dragging up personal issues instead of sticking to the subject for which they are supposed to be conducting the interview.
 
 
+32 # Joe Futterer 2010-10-25 22:41
Good for Julian. More people should refuse to play the Media's games.
He was correct to not want to obscure the deaths of 104,000 people with questions about his personal life
 
 
+31 # Leopold 2010-10-25 23:25
It is sad that the interviewer either had no grasp of the moral import of the issues, OR she wasn't allowed to discuss them in any form. Either way, it was a poor excuse for journalism, but it no surprise. It's all corporate-think and corporate crap. Good for Mr. Assange for leaving. It appeared the interview was going nowhere.
 
 
-9 # craig baldwin 2010-10-25 23:25
she is CIA spy!
 
 
+32 # Retired Navy LCDR 2010-10-25 23:45
Concur 100% with 'sfrider'! Rather than get into a "Bill O/Faux News" shout-over match, Mr. Assange politely & repeatedly told the "interviewer" her questioning was veering off-topic & that he would not respond to her attempts to shift the course of the interview. Nevertheless, the young lady hypocritically continued to deny what she WAS exactly doing - including saying "I have to ask this question." Her questioning fm the very beginning was irresponsible & vague, as when she used open-ended phrases such as: 'People or persons have said" without SPECIFICALLY identifying "WHO" or attributing the remarks to anyone until AFTER Mr. Assange mentioned a specific person.

I'd be insulting any & all 'interns' & high school journalists if I suggested this interviewer's 'performance' was even slightly close to what any of them could have done with even a minimum of preparation. She was WAY over her head & almost painfully 'unready' for her "assignment".

Perhaps because she was young, a female, & a minority as well was why CNN gave her this job?

Then again, CNN might then identify ME as being "prejudiced" against young, female, minority interviewers?
 
 
+16 # signalfire 2010-10-26 07:42
One wonders if CNN will wise up and use the precious time they are granted with such world-important people wisely. Assange is a true hero. How come republican yahoos and religious nutjob "I have sinned!!!" hypocrites are never asked about THEIR private lives?
 
 
+2 # Retired Navy LCDR 2010-10-28 13:47
Quoting
One wonders if CNN will wise up and use the precious time they are granted with such world-important people wisely. Assange is a true hero. How come republican yahoos and religious nutjob "I have sinned!!!" hypocrites are never asked about THEIR private lives?


I respectfully disagree w/use of "never' in last sentence above. Actually, hypocrites, esp like Newt Gingrich (3 marriages & counting!)-the tearfully despicable SC gov. Mark Sanford (infamous NON-trekker of the Appalachian Trail while simultaneously shagging Argentinian mistress - all @SC taxpayers expense (Google "governor sanford emails to mistress" for gory details)-Republican Larry Craig (PRIVATE cruiser of PUBLIC restrooms for gay sex partners while simultaneously PUBLICLY bashing non-heteros for what he declared were unholy/immoral life choices)-PLUS the supremely hypocritical Lou Dobbs & Meg Whitman (for their personal employment of illegal/undocumented/low wage immigrants, all the while publicly demanding criminal penalties for all who do so...actually DO get "called out" in the press. But as they lack any sense of moral responsibility let alone shame, THEY DON'T CARE!
 
 
+24 # M. McMackin 2010-10-25 23:54
This kind of journalism is why I rarely watch cable and non-cable news anymore....CSpan, PBS, NPR, current affairs books, internet, Christian Science Monitor, etc. at least give a person wanting facts an opportunity to glean some real knowledge.
 
 
+28 # HL MIND 2010-10-26 00:14
Turning a serious interview into a personality evaluation has got to be the stupidest thing an interviewer could possibly do. Typical of CNN; why deal with the issues. Perhaps next time she could discuss his wardrobe, and what foods he enjoys most.
Stupid stupid stupid. Dealing with a gravely serious subject so superficially.
HLM
 
 
+26 # Keith Swenson 2010-10-26 00:19
What an idiot reporter. She wouldn't recognize the real story if she was paid...What? She is paid? For interviews like that? What an idiot. Thanks Julian for pushing it back in their face.
 
 
+26 # sam 2010-10-26 00:29
tenacity has a place in investigative reporting and interviewing, while i don't believe that density does ... talk about determined-to-getcha 'journalism'! julian has her (and many others) outclassed by miles in integrity, purpose, and focus ...
 
 
+27 # Rosemary Blanchard 2010-10-26 00:46
Anything rather than spend the interview time focusing on the atrocities revealed in the leaked documents. Almost all the coverage of the leaks in this country has been about Wikileaks itself rather than about what the documents reveal about the brutal reality of the "Coalition's" conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:26
Quoting
Anything rather than spend the interview time focusing on the atrocities revealed in the leaked documents. Almost all the coverage of the leaks in this country has been about Wikileaks itself rather than about what the documents reveal about the brutal reality of the "Coalition's" conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are profoundly correct, sad to say.
 
 
+30 # James Lewis 2010-10-26 01:26
Julian was entirely correct to leave. The interviewer was relentlessly out of line, and Julian told her several times that he would walk if she did not stop the muckraking. She would not stop. The important issues were being ignored by her constant probing for irrelevant sensationalism. If CNN wants to retain any credibility, they either need to admit that she was ordered to follow that line of questioning, or dismiss her for incompetence.
 
 
+18 # MainStreetMentor 2010-10-26 02:39
Unfortunately this young lady interviewer represents the trend in television journalism of the last few years. Thankfully there are other journalists who remain faithful to their profession. Julian absolutely did the right thing by walking out.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:27
Quoting
Unfortunately this young lady interviewer represents the trend in television journalism of the last few years. Thankfully there are other journalists who remain faithful to their profession. Julian absolutely did the right thing by walking out.

This is one reason I threw out my TV almost two years ago. It's mostly crap.
 
 
+20 # Bob Alexander 2010-10-26 03:25
Brilliant! Principled! Disciplined! And so in contrast to the foolishness of CNN and the interviewer.
 
 
+19 # genierae 2010-10-26 05:25
Hooray for Julian Assange! He is an inspiration to all of us, and I thank him for his integrity, and his courage under fire. Let's not forget that CNN was a major cheerleader for Bush's wars, I stopped watching it because of that. Now they are trying to discredit Mr. Assange? They don't want their viewers to realize just how much material they omitted from their news reports. How many pictures of dead Iraqi children did we see on CNN? How many in-depth reports on war protesters were aired? How many interviews of antiwar progressives were there? CNN has much blood on its hands, promoting illegal, immoral wars, and now its doing its best to smear Julian Assange. No surprise here.
 
 
+19 # Dan 2010-10-26 05:54
Stop watching Corporate News Network and instead support Pacifica, Democracy Now!, NPR, PBS, CommonDreams, Alternet, Huffington Post, ZNet, BBC, Guardian of London, Wikileaks, and other non-corporate media.
 
 
+18 # Sandra 2010-10-26 06:04
The interviewer either failed to grasp the historical impact of the Wiki revelations or chose to ignore them. Her expression of seriousness belied the extraordinary shallowness of her questions and her pursuit of something extraneous to the purpose of the interview. Shame on CNN and the interviewer.

Sandra
 
 
+16 # Alix Aixopulos 2010-10-26 06:13
So much for the most trusted voice in news. Utterly unable to understand the concept of jounalism or the importance of the material that has been presented.
 
 
+19 # Agneta Norberg 2010-10-26 06:21
We should ALL follow his example and NOT participate in medias play.He again and again told the "journalist" he wouldnt answer personal questions. He had every right to leave.I just got hold of the book Manufacturing Consent, by Chomsky& Herman-about massmedia.Read it!Agneta-SWEDEN
 
 
+14 # DurangoKid 2010-10-26 07:27
What would you expect from the cult of personality? She's institutionally bound to make a fool of herself. She knows nothing else.
 
 
+13 # Joseph C. Stockett 2010-10-26 07:51
This is the real CNN and I will not watch CNN again. What a bigoted interviewer she is! CNN must be a Pentagon voice whining about WikiLeaks. These pro-military dupes, morons and idiots make me sick. Send this gal home. She should be fired. CNN has disgraced itself by her stupid personal attacks on Julian!
 
 
-14 # mstrpete 2010-10-26 08:17
It's interesting that nobody chose to answer my question. That's all right; it didn't take me long to find out: So, what you all are saying (or implying by consent) is that violence against women is acceptable if there is a "greater good" to be served? That the end justifies the means? sorry, but that's too slippery a slope for me.
 
 
+14 # Ed McC 2010-10-26 09:46
You must be asking about the violence perpetrated on Iraqi women by this war which was started on a lie, not the false accusations that were found to be without merit and thus exoneration. No one has exonerated Bush/Cheney etc for the violence on women and children, and civilian men in Iraq. They will reply it is for the greater good being served.. So I guess that the United States Government would answer yes to your question...yes the ends justifies the means. You started this slippery slope, so enjoy the slide down it. Wake up and smell the coffee, lady!
 
 
-16 # mstrpete 2010-10-26 10:34
Since the case against Assang has in fact been re-opened, I am referring to the rape charges against him. Exposing war crimes and ending these conflicts are worthy goals, but what means are justified in achieving those ends? Oh, and by the way...I'm a guy. Nice try, though.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:32
Quoting
Since the case against Assang has in fact been re-opened, I am referring to the rape charges against him. Exposing war crimes and ending these conflicts are worthy goals, but what means are justified in achieving those ends? Oh, and by the way...I'm a guy. Nice try, though.

The rape charges against him has nothing to do with the information he is revealing. "He" is not the news. I wouldn't care if Charles Manson obtained the information that he did and released it and I'd be a moron if I did (although it would be a real stumper if Manson did pull this off). My point is that YOU are continuing to infer that what he did or allegedly did is germaine to the topic at issue. It isn't. It won't be. If he's convicted of rape even, it won't matter one iota with regard to the topic at issue.
Get it? No?
 
 
+16 # Dr. Amy L Beam 2010-10-26 10:04
mstrpete, You are unbelievable naive and arrogant to think your so-called question deserves a response. The interviewer's sex had nothing to do with her incompetence which comes in all races and sexes. Incompetence and arrogance should not be reward, whether it is from this CNN "interviewer" or you. Anyone with a brain the size of a pea would immediately suspect the news story of rape is fabricated to divert attention form 104,000 dead Iraqis and torture as standard operating procedure. What, no charges brought by the Swedish women? How about the names of the accusing women? I recommend you go to www.wikileaks.org and start reading about the real issue.
 
 
-15 # mstrpete 2010-10-26 11:12
Dr. Amy, thank you for the gratuitous insult to my intelligence. You don't seem to see that it is the stifling of inquiry which got us into this mess in the first place, do you? And what does the interviewer's gender have to do with anything? I didn't bring that up at all. As for the charges, Saint Julian himself admitted having "consensual" acts with the women, so something must have happened. We don't know; we weren't there. "...a Swedish woman...had reported him to police." (from AP story.)
It seems like charges were filed by someone. And no, I don't find it unusual for the accusers' names to be withheld; that is common practice in the US to protect the identity of the accuser. I'll admit that the off-again, on-again nature of the case is a bit fishy, but to slag me for even asking about it is pretty intolerant and doesn't help your credibility.
 
 
+5 # Foxtrottango 2010-10-27 12:49
Dr. Amy was being nice. If it was up to me I'd call you a damn fool!

The question is, how much did US military paid to the prostitude for the accusation.

Please don't coerce to think that all US born citizens are stupid. Not all of us belong to the TEA party, neo-conservatives or republicans! In the long run, Europeans are much more intelligent than any one of those forementioned above.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:34
Just grow up mstrpete. You keeping engaging us with blather that doesn't matter. Why not ask something relevent?
 
 
0 # middleoftheroad 2010-11-11 13:09
Mstrpete, you are confounding the issues here. Let me simplify for you:
Issue 1) Wikileaks reports about war crimes and other atrocities.
Issue 2) Charges brought against Julian.
The two are NOT CONNECTED.
Issue one should be discussed
Issue two: he is innocent until proven guilty. Let the proceedings proceed, he has the right to say i won't talk about this nonsense. If it isn't nonsense, the courts will let him know. Your and the interviewers focus on issue two is rather outrageous, who would care anything about this guys life if he wasn't in charge of Wikileaks? Why are you more interested in his personal life or if he's an asshole abuser rather than what Wikileaks revealed. My guess is that you don't have a clue what Wikileaks reported.
 
 
+8 # Sgt Cal 2010-10-26 10:33
Who exactly are you talking to? Yours is the only stupid remark I saw in this entire string.
 
 
+10 # Spencer Elliot 2010-10-26 12:50
I think what most people not answering are saying is that we don't want to start threads that will be off topic. What you're doing isn't much different than what the CNN interviewer was doing, that is, using distraction to weaken the focus and dilute the message. There are probably other channels that are discussing the alleged rape, but this one is not it. We're not interested in allegations, we're interested in the truth. Character assassination is a well known ploy of the powers that be. Think about it!
 
 
+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-10-29 00:29
Quoting
It's interesting that nobody chose to answer my question. That's all right; it didn't take me long to find out: So, what you all are saying (or implying by consent) is that violence against women is acceptable if there is a "greater good" to be served? That the end justifies the means? sorry, but that's too slippery a slope for me.

Gee, now you're acting like that stupid interviewer. You don't get it do you.
 
 
+13 # Dr. Amy L Beam 2010-10-26 09:50
First I stopped watching FOX, then I stopped watching CNN.I stopped reading the NYTimes (who wrote a smear piece on Julian) and Washington Post. I'm about to stop listening to BBC international "fluff" reporting. Turn it all off! What's left? Al Jazeera (which western media maliciously attacks and Americans have no idea about because it is not broadcast in the U.S.). Use the power of the internet to seek the truth for yourself. I've never been better informed. Assange is a hero and should get the Nobel Peace Prize. CNN is superfluous, now merely an entertainment channel keeping Americans uninformed and misinformed. To donate to WikiLeaks go to http://wikileaks.org/media/support.html. You can use PayPal.
 
 
+1 # heraldmage 2010-10-30 13:28
I just wanted to add that AlJazeera can be watched over the Internet. Also i does not bash the USA/EU but does as does PressTV present both sides of all stories. Livestation TV is a free service that provides live broadcast of news in any language 24/7.

So turn off Anglo/American media & listen to what the rest of the world is saying.
 
 
+9 # Victor Buonamia 2010-10-26 10:50
Julian is courageous, we need a thousand like him the more the safer that way the ops dis campaigns would be watered down.
 
 
+11 # Arthur Cohen 2010-10-26 11:03
Can't add much to what's already been said--praise for Julian for walking out on this farce, and shame on CNN for continuing to debase journalism with "gotcha" bait and switch interviews like this. I don't really care if Assange is the world's biggest asshole, as long as there's integrity in what he's doing, and as far as I can tell, there is. Feh, I stopped watching CNN when Wolf Blitzer became their dominant voice. "CNN- Somewhat Better Than Fox"--ought to be their new tagline.
 
 
+9 # Anja 2010-10-26 11:10
Congrats Julian!
 
 
+12 # Maria Varela 2010-10-26 11:12
Julian was courteous, gentlemanly, intelligent and courageous. She was 13 years old and unfortunately demonstrated the shallowness of our educational system and shallow mentoring system for media people.
 
 
+1 # Retired Navy LCDR 2010-10-28 14:00
Quoting
Julian was courteous, gentlemanly, intelligent and courageous. She was 13 years old and unfortunately demonstrated the shallowness of our educational system and shallow mentoring system for media people.


Disclaimer! I write the following somewhat satirically:

Please don't overgeneralize & insult 13 yr olds! The so-called 'adults' who put Ms. Atika Shuberther in the interviewer's spot are the self-annointed non-professionals who are responsible!

And I agree 100% with Mr. Arthur Cohen cogent observation:

"CNN- Somewhat Better Than Fox"--ought to be their new tag-line.
 
 
+11 # Meria 2010-10-26 11:32
Julian did the right thing and never lost his cool. That interviewer was the worse I've ever seen.
I'd love to interview Julian on the MEAT and FACTS of his released papers, not the garbage the mass media wants to cover it up with. www.Meria.net
 
 
+11 # Bruce Taylor 2010-10-26 11:44
Ah, yes, the media: FAUX News indeed, as well as ABC (Anything But Content), NBC (Nothing But Crap). CBS (Chronic BS) and yes, CNN, Constant Non-News--all aimed at keeping people ignorant by not talking about subjects that are crucial to a country being both literate and functional and giving people vital information they need to make informed decisions about everything from going to war to taking real action about global warming (which, in the end, is probably going to be our real undoing). After all, what would happen if people had accurate information? What if that was more important than catering to advertisers forever telling you that you're worthless if you don't buy something? Might be tough to sell a war and too bad for the Tea Party candidates. Bravo for Julian to not falling into the mud of Junk Journalism and walking out. If the "reporter" had any shred of journalistic self-integrity, she would have seen what she was doing and--walked out as well.
 
 
+14 # Bob F 2010-10-26 11:48
Unfortunately, the deaths of 104,000 people is not news in the bizarro world inhabited by our news media.
 
 
+12 # michelle meyer 2010-10-26 12:05
CNN and that grossly incompetent reporter have shown themselves to be nothing but tabloid "journalists." How embarrassing.
 
 
+6 # Ron Maier 2010-10-26 12:55
Another alumna of the E! school of journalism.
But, I'm sooooooooooo pretty!!!!!!!
 
 
+9 # Terry Lee 2010-10-26 13:03
Re: Julian Assange - It's quite obvious that CNN was setting him up to walk. These corporate media whores / outlets are despicable.
 
 
+12 # Heartbeatt 2010-10-26 13:09
Just so we don't forget the serious nature of this issue:

In an interview with Aftonbladet, a Swedish newspaper, Assange said he'd been warned by friends that he may be targeted by groups such as the Pentagon with "dirty tricks" in order to ruin him and WikiLeaks.

"A lot of us who had any notion of what he was doing expected this sort of thing to happen at least a week ago," said Gavin MacFadyen, director of the Center for Investigative Journalism. "I'm amazed it has taken this long to get it together."

I doubt if Julian Assange would have been so crazy or stupid to be involved in anything he is accused of when he knows there how much is at stake. The accusation itself is not only aimed at getting him arrested and ruining his reputation, but also making it seem as if Wikileaks (which must be harrowing) is just for kicks. Quite a clever strategy and not unknown in the US encyclopedias of dirty tricks.
 
 
+8 # David S 2010-10-26 13:53
Right on Tom Martin! If 104,000 civilian deaths (these are not disputed by the Pentagon) are not enough to displace the CNN interviewer's line of questioning off of a personal attack on Julian Assange and on to the issue of government mass murder, for which the electorate is implicitly responsible, then what is? Nothing, apparently. CNN's huge sin of omission abdicates its responsibility to our democracy by servings state power at its worst. Knowingly directing the viewers' attention away from the enormous and preventable anguish of innocents whose suffering has no hope of ceasing absent CNN's wide reporting of it disgusts me.
 
 
+5 # Diane 2010-10-26 17:02
If you'd like to watch a real interview with Julian Assange, watch Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! (10/26)
 
 
+4 # Foxtrottango 2010-10-26 17:36
Only proves the US corporate news media are nothing but money seeking greedy bastards!

Is it any wonder why many Americans turn to the networks for foreign news media coverage?

Of all the news (if one can it that) networks I watch is the MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Rachael Meddows.
 
 
+3 # Harold M1 2010-10-27 00:19
CNN in this video reminds me of the Dems. When Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate was won by a Repub, reducing the 60 vote majority (what a joke) in the Senate down to 59, Obama & the Dems didn't get the hint or the omen of what could very well take place come Nov 2nd. They continued on the path of self-destruction in 2 ways; They constantly caved in to Repubs by passing half-baked Bills with more holes in them than Swiss cheese. and, in many ways, they acted & continue to act like pseudo-Repubs, not Dems, most especially when it comes to foreign policy & state secrets, & spying on Americans. I include in this statement a distinct lack of transparency, even more so by Obama than Bush, when it comes to continued torture & abuse of detainees, Kangaroo courts in the form of mil tribunals, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial killings without any due process, & indefinite detention of mostly innocent people being held at Guantanamo & many black sites thru-out the world. CNN sounded more like Fox News than they did CNN. They, in essence, became a pseudo-Fox News station in a similar fashion as the Dems seem to have become pseudo-Repubs.
 
 
+4 # tanis Fletcher 2010-10-27 10:51
Diane has the answer. Democracy Now with Amy Goodman on the radio or internet or LINK.TV. Straight, clear journalism. People are shocked by it because they aren't used to THE TRUTH. There is so little of it in the U.S.A.
 
 
+1 # davidfhayes 2010-10-29 04:00
Amy Goodman is the only journalist I trust.
 
 
+1 # dfvboulder 2010-10-29 06:06
Good for him! There's just too much of the same old tired tactic going on -- attack the messenger when you have no response to the message. You can bet she knows about the tactic, and how degrading it is too good journalism, yet persists in it anyway.
 
 
+2 # Reid Ridgway 2010-10-29 07:34
Um, yes I know a hundred thousand people died and all that stuff, Julian, but um... did you.... um you know,.... have sex with those women? Cause our viewers are falling asleep and we need the ratings and American people are way more interested in sex scandals than in the boring killing of a bunch of people in a far away land. Don't blame it on the interviewer folks, whatever the public laps up, is what's for dinner. The media serves the lowest, basest common denominator in the public. She had to ask the question, cause that's what the people want to know. If you ask me that's what's wrong with America, it's the public.
 
 
0 # Kumar 2010-12-02 02:00
What next America? shop lifting charges against Julian ? And blue notice for that?!!. When people get angry they become stupid. How true is that even for a country?

Good luck Sam!
 
You Are Not Logged In

Forgot Username? rsn Forgot Password?