Thursday, July 21, 2011

Two naughty (Aussie) boys

In the last twelve months, two of the biggest news stories* have had some remarkable parallels. The best known character of each was male, born in Australia, worked in journalism and widely perceived to be arrogant and controlling. Both published secret information (allegedly) obtained by illegal means that others wanted kept private and which proved controversial and explosive. In both cases, the original source of the secret information was incarcerated. In both cases, the events opened the lid on the seedy underbelly of power acting in its own interests. In both cases, the Guardian played a major role in bringing the story to light and in both cases the subsequent legal drama played out in the UK (and to a lesser extent, the US).
*Biggest in terms of media attention they have received, not necessarily the most important at either an immediate or protracted scale.

But the two cases could also not be more different. In the first, an almost unheard of nobody took information that was leaked to him for free, which was of obvious public interest and revealed the double standards, corruption and abuses of power associated with some of the most world's most powerful polities. In the second, a household name and one of the most powerful people in the world owning and leading the world's largest media group was in charge of a newspaper in which a significant culture of double standards, corruption and abuse of power was rife, and which systematically stole and paid bribes for information that was very frequently not in the public interest from thousands of individuals and which was published for titillation and profit. The first, for all his faults, was holding power to account for its manifold abuses. The second, for all his strengths, is responsible for an immensely powerful organisation guilty of manifold abuses, repeatedly denied and (allegedly) illegally suppressed (and he apparently pays no tax). And yet some continue to compare or conflate the two as though they are both simply stories about "illegal hacking".

The outcomes in each case could also not be more different. Julian Assange was quickly labelled a terrorist, pressure from the US government on PayPal, Mastercard and Visa cut off WikiLeaks' funding, there were widespread calls - even from senior US politicians - for his assassination, he was condemned by his own Prime Minister without trial and, ironically, Murdoch media joined in and helped magnify the character assassination on multiple continents. Yet, as far as I am aware, none of those whose abuses he revealed have been charged or resigned. In contrast, so far, Rupert Murdoch has had his next plaything taken away, fielded some embarrassing questions, received professional PR advice to eat humble pie, and taken another kind of pie in the face. Arrests and resignations continue to happen to other people. If we take his repeated professions of ignorance at face value, then my conclusion is that a corporation that has grown too large for the boss to take responsibility for a culture of systematic abuses within it is a corporation that is too large. Julian Assange is not the Messiah; Rupert Murdoch is far more than just a naughty boy.
Image by ALS.

22 comments:

byron smith said...

Guardian: News (allegedly) didn't keep their dirty tricks in the UK.

psychodougie said...

If we take his repeated professions of ignorance at face value, then my conclusion is that a corporation that has grown too large for the boss to take responsibility for a culture of systematic abuses within it is a corporation that is too large.
very well said. and a good argument against the circumstances that arise around claims of 'deniable responsibility'!

byron smith said...

Guardian: When (a) WikiLeaks (imitation) meets News Corp (see final few paragraphs of the story).

byron smith said...

People who are fine with extrajudicial killing of Assange.

byron smith said...

Guardian: If only he would - Berlusconi is worse than Murdoch (albeit on a smaller scale). His sexual sins are small fry compared to his political and journalistic ones.

byron smith said...

Guardian: Bankers' blockade of WikiLeaks sets a dangerous precedent.

byron smith said...

Assange extradition fact sheet. I find the bit in the conclusion the strangest (that there is no legal requirement that Assange be in Sweden in order to be questioned, which is the reason given for extradition as he has not (as far as I've heard and according to this site) been formally charged with an offence).

byron smith said...

The Conversation: More allegations against News Corp with apparently some credible evidence. Another story to watch.

byron smith said...

Tom Watson: Now Jeremy Hunt must resign. The all-too-close relationship between the Minister and a bid he was meant to be judging makes for another chapter in this sorry story of government and corporate failure.

byron smith said...

Guardian: Rupert Murdoch admits there was a cover up.

Also recently revealed is the very close contact that occurred between James Murdoch and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

byron smith said...

A portrait of Rupert Murdoch through BBC coverage over the decades.

byron smith said...

Julian's mother summarises the present situation from her perspective.

The rest of the media continue on the whole to ignore Bradley Manning.

byron smith said...

Guardian: CoE does the right thing, perhaps about a year or five too late, but still good to see this nonetheless.

byron smith said...

Guardian: Assange and Watson - activists fleeing extradition.

byron smith said...

Robert Greenwald: This is the best piece I've read on the extradition affair.

"The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their serious allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. But Assange has the equally compelling right under international law and treaties to be free of political persecution: which is exactly what prosecuting him (and perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US for WikiLeaks' disclosures would be. It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one."

byron smith said...

Oops - Glenn Greenwald.

byron smith said...

RT interview with President Correa about Assange.

Main points:
• Ecuador are pretty peeved about the UK threat of revoking the status of the Ecuadorian embassy (and so is the rest of South America and plenty of others). This move has made many other nations line up behind Ecuador and was a major blunder by the UK.

• Assange ought to be questioned and face the proper judicial process in Sweden, as long as it can be guaranteed that he is not subsequently extradited to "a third country" on another charge once he is in Sweden. Swedish prosecutors have been invited to interview him in person in the embassy, as has happened many times before in other cases. UK & Swedish governments have been asked to give reassurances that Assange is not extradited.

• Accusations that Ecuador is only supporting Assange to burnish its free speech credentials amidst accusations of media oppression are the work of the corrupt South American media, which is owned by a small number of very rich oligarchs trying to protect their interests.

• There will be no attempt to smuggle Assange out of the embassy.

byron smith said...

Julian Assange - neoliberal utopian. An assessment of Assange's politics.

byron smith said...

Independent: 2010 article with unnamed US sources discussing extradition plans from Sweden.

byron smith said...

Guardian: Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Assange.

byron smith said...

Guardian: Sweden's odd laws, illustrated through an unrelated case, give a credible reason for Assange to be concerned about extradition.

byron smith said...

Profile of Assange, three years on, from book extract by Geoffrey Robinson.