Julian Assange walks out of CNN interviews

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by fortunofiasco

 

Of course, when an organization releases files about war crimes it's better to ask about the rape charges in Sweden instead : congratulations CNN for amazing journalism...

YEAH! Because as a journalist you should only ask the questions that your interviewee wants you to. You should never pad the questions to avoid hitting a sour spot.

Assange is a liar. He's reaping what he's sewn...

That would be akin to this same girl getting Bill Clinton today for an interview about whatever *important* matter, and in the middle reminding him about what happened back then with Monika Lewinski.

Originally posted by atlasastro
We don't need Atika or CNN.

That's good.
I've never heard of Atika and don't watch CNN.

All I know is this interview was heavy-handed, completely shameful, and she came at it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer like it was her first one.

- Lee

Now, that interview was short. Still, I don't see what his personal life or the inner disputes within Wikileaks has to do with the story regarding the biggest US intelligence leaks in history? So, many questions could have been asked and she starts off with questions about his personal legal matters? What the heck, is she working for Inside Edition or something? It was rude for him to walk out. All he had to do was refuse to answer her questions as he started to do. Sooner or later she would have moved on to something else. The walk-off shows that Mr. Assange has a thin skin.

He could have ducked and dodged those fluff questions of her's, and turned the interview on its axis by showing how foolish the reporter was with her questions. Furthermore, if anyone contaminated that interview it was Assange. The guy must think he is King Farouk or something? To just walk and put the kibosh on the whole thing, because it was not going the way he wanted? Apparently, he is not appreciating the seriousness of his latest leak either? Now, we are left to speculate about his character, his intentions for the leak, and why he chose to put it out at this time. He was given an opportunity to set the record straight in his own words why this leak happened. Now, we can just fill in the blanks, with whatever we want. We all know the MSM has severe credibility issues, and lapses in objectivity on a wide range of issues. The reporter did a heck of a good job of showing that as she fought tooth and nail to discredit her subject. Still, his temper tantrum was uncalled for and highly unprofessional.

What a dopey pathetic bitch. She certainly screwed that interview, & her written article is totally biased. Again dumb bitch.

What do you want her to ask him about the documents? If you want to know something about the documents, why don't you learn how to read?

Why didn't the guy just say that he denies the allegations (in Sweden) and his lawyers instructed him not to discuss the matter any further in order not to jeopardize the case, or something to that extent? End of story. What's with the soap opera theatrics? The person who said the interview was staged is barking up the right tree.

If you want to see the guy run, instead of walk, why not ask him why he is so gullible and stupid to believe something as insulting to one's intelligence as the 9/11 Official Story. Oh, I forgot, they can't ask him that because CNN agrees 100% with his absurd and moronic position on 9/11.

Whistleblower my rear end. This guy (just like the media talking head) is yet another actor on the stage of life playing his assigned role. I wonder if they both received a raise for their performances.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


We want her to ask questions about the documents because that's what the interview was supposed to be about.

---

Specifically I think most people are not going to have the patience or interest in reading all 400,000 of the documents. I read a few and most of them are basically just reports of day to day incidents like car accidents, skirmishes, etc.

I think we want to find out which documents Assange finds the most troubling. Well, that's what I am interested in.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Now, that interview was short. Still, I don't see what his personal life or the inner disputes within Wikileaks has to do with the story regarding the biggest US intelligence leaks in history? So, many questions could have been asked and she starts off with questions about his personal legal matters? What the heck, is she working for Inside Edition or something? It was rude for him to walk out. All he had to do was refuse to answer her questions as he started to do. Sooner or later she would have moved on to something else. The walk-off shows that Mr. Assange has a thin skin.

He could have ducked and dodged those fluff questions of hers, and turned the interview on its axis by showing how foolish the reporter was with her question. Furthermore, if anyone contaminated that interview it was Assange. The guy must think he is King Farouk or something? To just walk and put the kibosh on the whole thing, because it was not going the way he wanted? Apparently, he is not appreciating the seriousness of his latest leak either? Now, we are left to speculate about his character, his intentions for the leak, and why he chose to put it out at this time. He was given an opportunity to set the record straight in his own words why this leak happened. Now, we can just fill in the blanks, with whatever we want. We all know the MSM has severe credibility issues, and lapses in objectivity on a wide range of issues. The reporter did a heck of a good job of showing that as she fought tooth and nail to discredit her subject. Still, his temper tantrum was uncalled for and highly unprofessional.

In a way I agree with you but Assange did warn her many times that he would "walk" if she continued to focus on his legal issues. To set precedence in that situation for the many others to come he had to walk out so that he can make his demands and know he would be taken seriously. Wikileaks' "intenetions"? Who can even consider their intentions when the truth is being released?

But if you ask me Wikileaks is a form of terrorism and just like 911 Wikileaks is aimed at affecting the American public.... Wikileaks is releasing information so the PTB can gauge the interest level of the American public and if the interest is negative or positive.... Wikileaks is also a way of provoking the American public into aifding tptb in establishing a police state through rioting and etc..... everything is a tool because Americans are for the most part tools.... forget sheep we are tools to build a pyramid with.... Illuminati will win or havent you heard of Project Enoch?

"He could have ducked and dodged those fluff questions of hers, and turned the interview on its axis by showing how foolish the reporter was with her question."

What purpose would that have served? The purpose of this phony baloney interview was to distract the ignorant masses with this little soap opera and question the guy's credibility (as if there is any question about this guy's credibility considering his asinine position on 9/11). Like another jackass once stated: mission accomplished.

And so he joins the ranks of Whoopi and Joy...................
If he is upset about being asked about his alleged crimes, I wonder how the US troops feel about their alleged crimes...............you cant have it both ways. I still think it was a set up by our current administration in hopes of saving themselves in the upcoming elections.

reply to post by Jakes51


Well see there lies the problem, you think we're left to speculate.
That would be assuming CNN is the only media out there. Newsflah : it's not.

What happens instead, by walking out, is this message :

"You're not taking this information seriously : good bye, you missed your chance ! There are others willing to discuss this seriously."

It is my opinion that it was a good thing to walk out : to prove CNN was no better than a second-rate tabloid (as it was new...).

What a joke of an interview...i could do better, it only takes 2 questions in 1 sentence...

Why release these documents and what are they proving?

CNN have totally blown it with Wikileaks! BBC anybody???

"Wikileaks is also a way of provoking the American public into aifding tptb in establishing a police state through rioting and etc"

There is a snowball's chance in hell of rioting happening unless the complacent American public learns how to read and lays off the mind numbing prescription meds, junkfood and idiot box. Don't see that happening anytime soon.

Like all media outlets, Wikileaks is a propaganda organization and a scam. Seven years after Abu Ghraib, what exactly are they telling us that we didn't already know about? Like we really need 400,000 pages of soiled toilet paper to tell us what a handful of photos already told us seven years ago? Gimme a break (pun intended)!

Are people's memories and attention spans really that pathetically short? Give the comatose masses shallow gossip material over substance and they'll take it every time. If you're that much of a moron, you deserve all the screwing over you get. Enough of this garbage - I have more important things to do - like watch football.

Users have been commenting on the journalist facebook page in "various" ways :

www.facebook.com...

A few ones :

"Shame on you! I hope that this kind of journalism takes a step back to seriously look at itself and what it stands for. I'm only dissapointed by the fact that you sincerely thought you were being a good journalist, and that most people, in your place, might have done the same. That's probably the difference between a "run of the mill" journalist and a serious one."

---

"You are quite possibly, the worst interviewer I have ever seen. Have some respect for journalism and resign."

---

"you just proved why we need wikileaks with your interview.

---

etc...

Assange is being used as a massive tool to distract and enrage a specific group that are easily manipulated by this sort of hype.

Ask why he has been allowed to even function considering the fallout from his last "dump of exclusive material".

It would be quite simple to shut him down if the forces at play wanted to.

This is a great distraction right around the mid term elections and as other more important and currently relevant stories are beginning to build in our political theater.

Keep your eyes on the true prize.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


The news and import of this set of leaks is the complacency of the US in the face of knowledge of these abuses. It wasn't so clear before these that the US knew about cases of abuse and deliberately chose to ignore them. They thereby gave their stamp of concent. They thereby, by official policy, condone the use of abuse.

Assange could have turned the tables and directly questioned the interviewer about why she asked the questions she did and did she think that was more important than the war crimes. We can only speculate on how that would have turned out. She seemed not to listen to his protests as it was and determined to stay on the path that was scripted beforehand.

Had he just hung in there, besides him getting more aggravated, it would have remained a low news day. At least by walking out, everyone is talking about this.

I applaud Mr. Assange's determination to keep the interview focused on what really matters. CNN appears to be trying Faux News tactics and as Mr. Assange said, it's disgusting. Stick to real journalism: there are already too many tabloid/trash newspapers and networks. by deanrd7

My thuoghts exactly, this quote is from the comment sections on the youtube video, I really thought CNN was better then that, obviously I was wrong.

Go Julian

Typical of the Mainstream media to completely ignore the real issue and "contaminate" it with a probe into a person's personal life. It is not their job these days to be reporters. They are PR reps for the Elite. This is a perfect example of their methods.

Guys, guys, guys... really? You really think it was *her* that led that interview down that direction? I would bet every penny I own that she was told to derail the interview and make him look like a rapist. She is nothing more than a puppet and they never had any intention of talking about the issues.. Their goal was to destroy his character and I must say, for those who have never heard of him before, it might have worked.. If you can't dispute the message, kill the messenger.

Originally posted by fortunofiasco
Users have been commenting on the journalist facebook page in "various" ways :

www.facebook.com...

A few ones :

"Shame on you! I hope that this kind of journalism takes a step back to seriously look at itself and what it stands for. I'm only dissapointed by the fact that you sincerely thought you were being a good journalist, and that most people, in your place, might have done the same. That's probably the difference between a "run of the mill" journalist and a serious one."

---

"You are quite possibly, the worst interviewer I have ever seen. Have some respect for journalism and resign."

---

"you just proved why we need wikileaks with your interview.

---

etc...

this woman deserve to be bashed, people need to tell her how they feel

lets be realistic: our world is completely %$#¨%#¨¨$&up!

And the most amazing thing is that if you are the guy trying to tell the truth, you get slammed by these sociopaths called journalists and the corporatocracy world ...

Its just disgusting to see these sociopaths doing the killings, protecting themselves and creating lies ...

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
And so he joins the ranks of Whoopi and Joy...................
If he is upset about being asked about his alleged crimes, I wonder how the US troops feel about their alleged crimes...............you cant have it both ways. I still think it was a set up by our current administration in hopes of saving themselves in the upcoming elections.

Different context. Assange was asked to come on so that he could be interviewed about his site and the war documents, not to be harassed about the so-called crimes that he committed. He came on his own free will.

Soldiers are ordered into confrontations that unfortunately sometimes yield unsavory results that can come back to haunt the government and military. Like what is happening with Wikileaks.

I mean, what would you do if someone invited you to dinner, then instead of eating food you were being solicited to purchase car insurance instead? Would you sit and listen at a table without food, or would you leave?