A unfortunate text about WikiLeaks published in leading Swedish paper DN, 16 June 2013 – at the anniversary of Julian Assange political asylum, confined at the Ecuador Embassy by Sweden’s design:
“Today’s whistle-blowers choose for their leaks rather other sites than a crumbled WikiLeaks”
For such conclusion the leading Swedish paper is quoting direct declarations done to to DN by “WikiLeaks’ contact-person in Sweden” Prof. Christian Christensen, and also by the known anti-Assange journalist David Leight.
And regarding Assange, who DN reports is “legally suspected of rape”, “there is no solution at sight whatsoever” (Ingen lösning i sikte för Assange), says DN. These stabbings on the back of truth by Sweden establishment’s MSM are done in the very moments that Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Patiño starting the talks with UK authorities in London for just that purpose – to find a solution to the deadlock produced BY SWEDEN with its prestige-bound negative of interrogating Assange in London. Further, the UK autorities as reported by BBC quoting a Foreign Office spokesman, “remain committed to seeking a diplomatic solution to this situation”. The Swedish media campaign appears as double fold unethical, for neither DN dare to publish the complete reportage on-line for the general public, avoiding confronting international rebuttal to the inaccuracies of Hall, Christiansen and Leigh. Professors blogg reveals however the MSM plot here.
Analysis by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli
DN First-page 16 June 2013: “Deadlock remains in the case Assange”
Leading newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN) surprises today the Swedish public with a first-page article on WikiLeaks, the whereabouts of contemporary whistleblowing which now “neglect WikiLeaks” to opting for classical newspapers which can now offer services and security level to the whistle-blowers that a “crippled” WikiLeaks is not any longer in position to offer. The reportage, composed by various articles in the main by foreign correspondent Thomas Hall (previously criticized in Professors blogg for his ostensible pro US-Army bias in the Swedish reporting on the NATO civil-killings in Afghanistan), and with corresponding political reflexions around the first year of Julian Assange at the Embassy of Ecuador in London.
DN article: “Whitleblowers select other ways than WikiLeaks”
DN describes that WikiLeaks has “crumbled”. But, who is responsible for that?
Journalist David Leight:
“We have not been in contact with WikiLeaks since three years. WikiLeaks has been since then practically out of the game”
Christian Christensen, media professor at Stockholm University, and which according to the DN reportage he is “given in the WikiLeaks (official) site as contact-person in Sweden” [http://wikileaks.org/Press.html#wsf] says to DN:
“The attention around Assange as a person has increasingly shadow the idea of WikiLeaks”. What sense does it makes? As if this “increased” attention – for instance the one deployed by the Swedish media and which has consisted mainly in ungrounded and nasty ad-hominem attacks – has been in true motivated by any other fundamental factor than Assange is the founder AND still the forerunner of WikiLeaks, the No. One poltical enemy (and main competitor) of the MSM. By trying killing his character have they aimed to decimate his organization WikiLeaks. In political terms and in medial terms), the dichotomy Assange / WikiLeaks is a false construction serving the agenda of the powers exposed by WikiLeas in Sweden, as in other corporate-dominated countries.
Other explanation by Christensen, “Besides, the organization WikiLeaks is suffering of a bad economy” (“plågad av en dålig ekonomi”). How can one possible mention this factor, in the context of the organization’s efficacy, without referring to the causes for that deterioration? To the agents of that deterioration? I personally would say that it is exactly the political efficacy of WikiLekas in fighting the political-financial establishment (in which MSM is a part) what have caused the war of attrition against the organization, and that it has resulted in their relative crumbled resources. Which by the way has not stopped the production of WikiLeaks’ informative task, continuously.
The DN “reportage” seems intending to plant among the Swedish public – with the “professorial” help of Leigh and Christensen – the absurd impression that it is Assange the cause of the “deterioration of WikiLeaks”, which in its turn it is only another postulate – NOT proved whatsoever – by the authors of the article series.
Other explanation given by Christensen to DN is that “WikiLeaks was before the only organization that could guarantee anonymity and at the same time offer large spreading through cooperation with various newspapers. Today there are several alternatives for leaks (whistleblowers) in order to reach (the public) with their material”
Professors blogg comment: The authors above are not considering the true difference between the materials released by WikiLeaks and those published, for instance currently, by the MSM. These differences are – among others – in terms of:
a) Quality of the material (in the sense of originality of the materials – nearly unfiltered, and if so only for reasons of protecting identities, etc., instead of being journal “reportage” referring filtered content-information taken from those materials)
b) Quality of the materials, its detailed account (in the sense that what has been published by WikiLeaks – for instance the Diplomatic Cables – comprised all the details of each of the items exposed as they were available to the source). This would enable richer analyses than if departing from a “served” redaction-article, for instance done or “filtered” by a Newspaper desk or editor. Let us not forget that the MSM is part of the corporative system, which WikiLeaks and their sources have helped to expose.
c) Extension of the materials. The production available to the public at the WL sites equates – to the best of my knowledge – the material at disposition of WikiLeaks.
d) Free availability (public access) of the material beyond the readers or subscribers of the corporative MSM
e) Most important ethical issue of all: WikiLeaks is NOT an instrument of the power they exercise control upon. WikiLeaks exposes a system of power-abuses in which many MSM have been a part of it.
Article “There is no solution at sight whatsoever”
Encircled text in green-blue:
“The facts, juridically: Suspected of Rape”
My comment about the “deadlock” at the Embassy (“There is no solution at sight whatsoever”)
Nominally, the deadlock at the Embassy of Ecuador in London has been attributed to the negative of the Swedish authorities to conduct an interrogation with Julian Assange in London, directly in situ or by video-link – both procedures contemplated as standard in the Swedish legal praxis. However, the explicit political thesis presented in Professors blogg has been another. We have called the “Stalling hypothesis” and refers to:
As far the “accusations-item” is concerned, Sweden has at-large demonstrated it is NOT interested in ending the legal case. The only interest Sweden has demonstrated is in trying to obtain the extradition – by any means possible – of Assange to Sweden, where Assange would be kept incommunicado-status behind bars as per standard legal procedure in Sweden. The extradited-prisoner status of Assange (the status he would have if taken prisoner to Sweden) enables other “juridical” possibilities for Sweden, respective to USA, that were not accessible at the time he would have been interrogated by the Swedish prosecutor when he was free in Sweden. This situation may be one explanation why Assange was led to understand he was “free to travel”.
The Swedish legal extradition process against Assange, and the Swedish legal process regarding the accusation “by the two women” against Assange, are in the main two different things – and only euphemistically connected. Those two different things have wrongly been mixed up in the discussions around the “juridical case”. The synthesis of this dialectics confirms conclusively that the Swedish “legal” case against Assange is solely the political case of USA against WikiLeaks.
The known homogeneity or “consensus” between the Swedish political parties appears most visible in a) matters of foreign policy, b) issues of “National security”, or c) any topic that might compromise the prestige or trademarks of Sweden abroad. And we find the Assange case implicated by the Swedish authorities in those three items altogether.
From Professors blogg article Timing the processes
— Delaying Assange extradition-process for timing with process in the U.S. On the possible reasons for the neglected interrogation of Julian Assange and the verdict delays. On WikiLeaks and Democracy. Excerpts of the RT Interview in Stockholm and excerpts regarding the “protracting theses”
“In the U.S., the preparations for these trials are seeking a connection between WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning in terms of making Julian Assange accountable; is that what they are apparently looking after. And for that they need time. They need to prepare these materials. And for that, of course, it is highly convenient to keep Assange under arrest – and under the threat of the prospective of bring him here to Sweden, where he later he might be subject to an extradition petition.”
In the RT interview ‘MSM blacks Assange as US seeks Manning link’, gives a further rationale for the “protracted” legal process is discussed. The thesis on the protracted Swedish process aimed to benefit a timing with the U.S. processes against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, finds support in some items at the time line “United States v. Manning, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the Press” authored by Alexa D. O’Brien. Some issues in this interview are referred in the RT article US needs Assange under arrest ‘while seeking Manning link’
The economic blockade aimed concomitantly to asphyxiate Wikileaks also politically, as its political base and collaborative cadres, all of them engaged only altruistically and ad-honorem, neither could endure such long period, almost a year now. This situation also affects WikiLeaks organizational functioning, as the longer the time the undefined process persists, the more expensive the costs, and ultimately the totally draining of such funds. Actually, this was pointed out by Julian Assange long time ago, when in one of his appearance’s outside the court in the previous hearings compared the enormous resources put up in this legal process by Sweden, Britain or elsewhere, in contrast with the hyper limited resources at his disposal.