Why the western media is afraid of Julian Assange
JVL Introduction
This speech given by journalist Jonathan Cook on 28th January 2023 outlines the reasons why we need the Julian Assanges of this worl and why the attacks and imminent threat to Assange affects us all. There are groups across the world campaigning for his freedom, after more than 13 years without freedom and for more than three years in Belmarsh High Security prison. No one has claimed that anything revealed through Wikileaks. Those responsible for the atrocities he reported are free whereas the whistleblower is facing up to 175 years imprisonment in the US.
“We must keep reminding the world of what Assange accomplished, and the terrible price he paid for his achievement”.
You may want to sign this petition if you have not already done so especially once you have read Jonathan Cook’s words.
Petition · Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition · Change.org
This article was originally published by Jonathan Cook's substack on Mon 30 Jan 2023. Read the original here.
Why the western media is afraid of Julian Assange
By colluding in his vilification, journalists can avoid thinking about the difference between what Wikileaks does and what they do
Loading article text…
As usual, Jonathan Cook puts his case with great clarity and care. There is no need for stridency because the impact is all the more powerful when the language is simple, as here, and the logic unanswerable.
Our problem is the eternal “What is to be done?”
Much of social media seems to present medicine that’s more damaging than the disease. The cowardice of journalists hides behind a screen of word-playing cleverness and an insatiable appetite for trivia and obfuscation.
A few years ago Alan Bennet was denying that he had moved to the left; he had stayed the same, but everyone else had moved to the right, he said. Values that used to be shared were now preserved by an eccentric few.
Nowhere is this more clear than the absence of any “normal” critical consciousness applied to the IHRA “definition” of antisemitism. How can such a clumsy piece of work pass muster? How can something so manifestly ill-fitting and thrown together be genuflected to by those who consider themselves robust and meticulous?
We can only hope that Jonathan’s path will be followed by a younger generation of journalists who have observed how things are and have the spirit and talent to challenge it.