Corporate media smears WikiLeaks

March 11, 2011
In contrast to the mainstream media, WikiLeaks says its purpose is to promote ‘scientific journalism’ — a democratic style

In a July 2010 interview with WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange,’s Chris Anderson said WikiLeaks had released in just a few years more classified state and military documents than every other media outlet combined.

“It’s a worry isn’t it,” Assange said. “That the rest of the world’s media is doing such a bad job that a little group of activists is able to reveal more of that sort of information than the rest of the world’s media.”

After more than 100 days online, the WikiLeaks Cable Viewer continues to release more evidence of dodgy diplomatic moves and US state secrets.

Recently released cables have revealed the complicity of Swedish and Russian foreign affairs officials with the US over European Union negotiations about free trade agreements and energy market policy.

Other cables have given evidence of the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s requests for detailed biographic data on other diplomats. A recent cable gave “Kudos to [US] embassy Buenos Aires” for its successful spy work.

Many mainstream media outlets have profited greatly from reporting on WikiLeaks’ scoops. But this hasn’t stopped them from publishing a series of smear pieces against Assange and WikiLeaks.

Media coverage about WikiLeaks has become awash with tabloid-style hit pieces and tell-all books. The real news, WikiLeak’s exposure of US “diplomacy”, has often been sidelined.

One recent example was a claim by Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical British magazine Private Eye. He said that Assange told him, in an off-the-record phone conversation, that there was a “Jewish-led conspiracy” against WikiLeaks.

The “news” about Hislop’s claim, which is denied by Assange and cannot be corroborated, was reported around the world. It received far more coverage than many of the 5000 cables WikiLeaks has so far released.

In a Private Eye editorial, Hislop wrote “as much as he could remember” of the conversation. Assange had phoned Hislop to refute an earlier Private Eye story that said WikiLeaks was associated with an anti-Semitic Russian journalist, an allegation WikiLeaks has denied.

“He said that I and Private Eye should be ashamed of ourselves for joining in the international conspiracy to smear WikiLeaks," Hislop wrote.

WikiLeaks refuted Hislop’s claims in a March 1 statement. It said Hislop had “distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase”.

“In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction.”

WikiLeaks pointed out it “promotes the ideal of ‘scientific journalism’ — where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions.

“We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world.”

Yet the media outlets throughout the world were happy to report Hislop’s “distortions” as though they were facts.

For example, the March 5 Age and Sydney Morning Herald published an article on famous “ranters” that lumped Assange together with the misogynist woman-beater Charlie Sheen, the fashion designer John Galliano (who recently told two women their Jewish ancestors should have been gassed) and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The article said: “In any other week, Assange's alleged blast to Private Eye editor Ian Hislop about the journalists who ‘failed my masculinity test’ would have rapidly become the meme of the week.”

“But he's been outgunned by the unhinged narcissism of the competition.”

In its March 1 statement, WikiLeaks also criticised the role of the British Guardian, which recently published a biography of Assange, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy.

The book’s co-author David Leigh is a former confidant of Assange and has written on many of the leaked cables for the Guardian.

WikiLeaks said Leigh “deliberately, and secretly, broke an agreement signed by the Guardian’s editor-in-chief stating that 1. the Guardian was not to publish WikiLeaks cables 2. the Guardian was to keep them confidential. 3. the Guardian was to not store them on an internet connected computer system.

“Leigh had previously shown himself to be a competent journalist, but secretly broke all elements of the contract.

“On being notified that the German news weekly Der Spiegel was writing a book (in German) that would expose this breach, Leigh attempted to cover his actions, first by laundering a distorted version of the events through a friend at Vanity Fair then by writing his own book, which he had published through the Guardian.”

Former WikiLeaks associate Daniel Domscheit-Berg has also published his own book, Inside WikiLeaks, which includes irrelevant allegations about Assange’s personality flaws and hygiene.

Despite WikiLeaks’ repeated criticisms of the two books, Steven Spielberg’s Hollywood studio DreamWorks has bought the rights to them to make WikiLeaks: The Movie.

Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger welcomed the movie deal and said that Assange would make “a compelling character who goes beyond what any Hollywood scriptwriter would dare to invent,” the March 3 Guardian reported.

In response, WikiLeaks said on Twitter: “This is how bullshit ends up being history.”

Politicians and commentators worldwide have gone as far as to accuse Assange and WikiLeaks of terrorism, including US vice-president Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Assange said in an October 25 interview at the Frontline Club that a “titanic abusive organisation” such as the Pentagon “trying to attack you as a result of your work” was a huge challenge to face.

He said it explained why media heavyweights like the New York Times, which has handed over all of the cables WikiLeaks gave it to the US government for editing, and The Guardian had started to attack WikiLeaks.

“You don’t need to fact check when you’re writing about less powerful organisations,” he said. “What’s the free press vanguard going to do? Sue you for libel?”

By contrast, WikiLeaks says its purpose is to promote “scientific journalism” — a democratic style of journalism in which the sources of a story are published along with the article.

“We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true,” Assange wrote in the December 8 Australian.

“Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?”

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Spiegel Online that Assange is “a new kind of journalist”.

“This is the Pentagon Papers case of the 21st century involving new media and a much more international form of journalism. The Internet knows no national borders.”

He said, in the case of the US, “freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are more important than protecting secrets”.

But as’s Glenn Greenwald said on March 1: “Nobody … loathes Assange the way journalists do; recall that they led the way in condemning him and calling for his prosecution for doing what they’re supposed to do.”

Distrust in the mass media, which habitually prints stories with factual errors and a bias that favours powerful interests, has created the impetus to develop this new type of journalism.

Assange, an Australian citizen being illegally persecuted by foreign states and denied protection enshrined in Australian law, should be defended by the world press that has undeniably benefited from WikiLeaks’ mission.

The editors and journalists of the corporate media, who look to curry favour or publish a story out no matter who it destroys, deserve the sharpest criticism for failing to defend WikiLeaks — one of the best examples of investigative journalism to date.

The same must be said for the mainstream media’s near silence about the imprisonment of US private Bradley Manning.

Manning has being held in solitary confinement in US military prisons for almost 300 days, facing life in prison or even the death penalty over allegations he was the one who leaked the secret cables that have provided corporate media organisations with so many stories, and has made them so much money.


Spielberg already made a lot of money with his" documentary" The last day of the big lies It is not enough for him now he uses those 2 bullshit books to make more money, What makes me sick the whole mouton de panurge world will have a distorted image about Julian Assange because they always believe this greedy hollywoodian director His biography bullshit movie about Assange, with the help of mainstream media will be certainly again an other opium du peuple blockbuster
It's sad that our mainstream media no longer behaves like a free press, but simply as a public relations arm of government and industry. We are continually distracted from the real issues (life and death, freedom and exploitation) by fluff pieces and linkbait. It's reasonable to question if this distraction is deliberate. From the beginning, the mainstream media have put enormous effort into distracting us from the Wikileaks documents. First, they ignored the documents, despite the fact that these single releases told us more about the Iraq and Afghan wars than the whole MSM had done in ten years. Then they vociferously asserted that there was nothing to see, "move along". They attempted to divert us from any real attention on Wikileaks (or Anonymous for that matter) by focussing on a search for hierarchical leaders, which organizations of this kind quite obviously do not have. Once Assange stepped forward as a Wikileaks spokesperson in the hope of stopping this futile use of our media space, they obsessed about him. The documents about the wars we illegally started? Pushed to the back page, if mentioned at all. This really peculiar behaviour by any professed "free press" has only ramped up since the beginning of the cables release. The completely disproportionate Interpol- and government-supported hunting of Assange over not taking a STI test in Sweden (otherwise known as "rape", despite the ready availability of dictionaries) completely pushes any real Wikileaks news out of view. Taxpayers' money in at least four countries (Sweden, Australia, the U.S. and the U.K.) is being spent lavishly to "find something to charge [Assange] with". We taxpayers don't get a voice in this vendetta. Kudos to Wikileaks for showing what a "free press" really is, and to Julian Assange for volunteering to step into the crosshairs of those who want to suppress it. Also kudos to Anonymous, for defending Article 19 of the UDHR. Thanks to Green Left Weekly for standing up for what we all should believe in: freedom of information and decent treatment for all people. Clytie Siddall (Renmark, South Australia)
Julian, I'm a fellow Aussie. I'm with you as so many of us are. You stand for truth, honesty and justice for the populace, the small individuals of this world who prize the truth above all else. We are with you. Stay strong, you will win in the end because the Good overrides evil and will prevail over corrupt governments and individuals. Take care, Love Sue
"The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Grave, he is a patriot...recognizing a wrong being committed in this country's name, insisting that we deliver on the promise of our constitution...these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending what is best for America, and we should never forget that, especially when we disagree with them, especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words...that's part of the American tradition." -Barak Obama, July 2, 2008, Independence, MO @16:45
Don't worry, the more intelligent, thoughtful, and informed won't buy into it, and fortunately, such people also tend to have a greater long-term effect on culture and society. In the end the truth will out, and those spreading B.S. and lies will be seen and known for what they are. We are fast approaching an era where the time lag between the occurrence of an event, and the knowledge surrounding the truth of its circumstances are becoming near zero. "Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." -- Confucius
Great article, I agree.. Also -maybe people just don't want to know because it makes them more comfortable? Or maybe they don't care because of the lack of info?
Of course the mainstream media are out to get Assange - they parroted the government's lies without really questioning, WikiLeaks exposed the lies, and the vicious immorality of the real policies they concealed. They pretend to report the news, WikiLeaks makes it clear how they've allowed themselves to be used as propaganda organs for those in power. When you've piously mouthed treacle about how we're fighting to bring freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and someone reveals the truth - that we kill those people indiscriminately, while enriching the corrupt leaders we have enthroned to rule them - well, how would you feel?
While I agree with everything Greenwald writes and believe Assange is getting a raw deal, there is something off about that deal with the Guardian. Why would a newspaper agree formally to keep the cables secret and not write about them?
The Greenleft and the WSWS together have the most accurate and fair & balanced coverage on Wikileaks and its besieged hero-founder. Keep up the good work. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
I can understand the MSM attacks; their corporate lords and masters don't want the truth to emerge re: themselves, and the dirty deeds they've perpetrated since their initial existence. I can understand how MSM journalists might bow to their lords and masters to ridicule a man who had very reasonably given them documents with only one rational condition. I can understand, but that doesn't mean I condone spineless activity. Nor can I condone the bullshit artistry painted ever so thick in front of the gullible masses. Pixie
Great article. Just wanted to point out though as it isn't made clear in the article that Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who is assisting the Wikileaks legal case, is not a consistent friend of free speech and in 2007 led a successful campaign to have pro-Palestinian academic Norman Finkelstein denied tenure at De Paul University on the basis of his criticism of the actions of the Israeli state. Dershowitz also reportedly gathered a team of lawyers of "devastate and bankrupt" anyone who voiced support for the boycott, divestment, sanctions campaign against Israel. He's part of the school of through that tries to justify such attacks on free speech by saying they are 'defending academic freedom'. Like I said, great article but just wanted to point out that his support for freedom of speech is conditional

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.