Assange question.

I cannot figure out why Assange would be publishing the documents through the mainstream media. I know people have asked this question before but it is always in the midst of other threads and I haven't seen a good answer.

With all the speculation about Assange being CIA or something my one thought is "Why would he let the media outlets pick and choose what they are going to publish and how they would portray things?".

I want to believe he is trying to help but if this is who people are thinking is going to reveal something world changing you may be looking in the wrong spot. Is there an explanation as to why he chooses to publish through the MSM in the fashion he does?

reply to post by NWtoHide


More exposure. As to whether or not he's CIA, if he even WANTED to appear authentic, then this was the really, only way to go.

I've broken rank with some of my more conservative friends and have always thought that what he did was a blast!
Legal or not, it made for some awesome reading.

reply to post by NWtoHide


i dont understand why everybody cant accept the fatc maybe he is only publishing the material so we are as privelidged as him to know what information is held by these documents

Alright, this is the first and last ASSANGE thread I will address.

Tell me, what is the US government going to do to say the NY Times?

How about the other distribution points?

They CANNOT go for the one, without the other.

Otherwise you have what is called the destruction of the "equal under the law" clause.

If that is done, all bets are off. So, he is accused of rape or something, HAVE YOU READ THAT? WOW, sounds like to me, that these women were not raped, they were not satisfied.

This is from their own statements. Is that the definition of rape in Europe now?

WoW! I am beginning to think that EVERYTHING Euro should be abolished from our memories, for this is to become the fervent destruction of information.

That is it. Yes, he released info that was destructive to the furtherance of the charade. BIG FREAKING DEAL.

Pull off the gloves, time to set history straight!

reply to post by NWtoHide


By giving it to the media, it will now reflect their individual integrity and they will all have to make a decision as to whether they report it accurately or whether they are coerced to slant the info in another direction or deflect from the information to attack Assange instead. This way the battle lines will be drawn publicly and individually. Everyone will have to take a stand---not just media mouths but all people who hear will have to weigh the evidence.

Some of what has been reported through the Leaks was previously made public, though it could only be done so in a veiled manner using words like "it is suspected" or "it is possible that x caused yz" ...words that alluded to the possibility. Assange's work may give us details on who greased who's palm to get the dirty deeds done. His documented proof should give us names, dates, times, and places so that there is no question of who was behind each deed and why.

So far, I think he has behaved properly in every step along the way---turning himself in in spite of having been framed. It was so obvious. All they wanted was an excuse to get him under their thumb and now, with those fake charges falling by the wayside, they have a far-fetched excuse to monitor him. When they can finally come up with some reason to try to exact revenge they will retrieve him.

I can't understand why with all the proof of the dirt and evil ruining our world being laid out and presented to the public, that people are still so much in denial that they want to focus on tearing down a person of great courage.

Truth tellers are always punished. Do you remember a time, perhaps when you were a child---and innocently told the truth about something---something that you should not have seen or known---that caused embarrassment or repercussion to someone who was doing wrong---and you were punished for it?

Although many people are taught that it is virtuous to always tell the truth, the mixed message that is actually enforced in society is to tell the truth when it is convenient and advantageous. We are taught by actions and our culture to evade the truth and deflect. Or we are taught to justify the "white lies" for the sake of sparing the innocent who will suffer because of hearing the truth.

Originally posted by NWtoHide
I cannot figure out why Assange would be publishing the documents through the mainstream media.

because it is staged;

keep doubts and mind open, it's healthy

but dont trust msm, it's not

reply to post by NWtoHide


To answer your question, I believe that there exists a hidden reason for the trickle release by Wikileaks.

As I have stated in other threads here, whatever else he may or may not be, Julian Assange is NOT stupid. He is playing three dimentional chess while the governments of the U.S., Sweden and the U.K. are playing checkers.

Consider that the mainstream media partners of WikiLeaks were given the entire set of documents before the release began. They chose which cables to write about and which, if any, redactions were appropriate. At the same time, the WikiLeaks site has been releasing the documents pertaining to the stories being published by their press partners.

The underlying story here may very well be what is NOT published by the partners rather than which cables they choose to report upon. So far, any "bias" seen in the pattern of release of the leaks (whether pro-Israel, anti-U.S. or supporting military action against Iran) has been that of the media and not WikiLeaks. As this saga runs it's course, my personal belief is that we will see WikiLeaks step forward and underscore the gaps in the medias' coverage by releasing more and more of the cables which the press has chosen to ignore. That is the true power of WikiLeaks position.

As for the EAW (European Arrest Warrent) initiated by Sweden, there still have been no charges filed against Assange thus the warrent is defective on its face and thereby unenforcable. Notice that the U.K. police made no attempt to detain Assange until he voluntarily surrendered his person to a local police station. This move, again in my opinion, was intended to protect Assange from any "rendition" by the U.S. authorities. By the time he surrendered, the Swedish government had already publically stated that they would defer any action by their courts in favor of his being turned over to the U.S. for action. Extradition from the U.K is somewhat more difficult (think Gary McKinnon) even when there are charges actually filed by a foreign state.

All in all it would seem that, at least so far, everything is unfolding precisely as WikiLeaks has intended. Thus far WikiLeaks, and by extension Assange himself, seems to be far ahead on points in whatever game is afoot. While the final outcome is yet to be determined it is my fervent hope that, in the end, we shall see more openness in governments and the way in which they conduct their affairs with regard to international relations as well as the manner in which the media reports that conduct. This alone would result in a very positive change in the human condition.

The mainstream media will get him the most exposure possible. Of course the msm will portray it in a way where the govt. looks as good as they can given the circumstances, but the main reason is this is causing millions of people to question the govt. alot more, Also those who never questioned the govt. before are starting to

He needs to publish the cables through the MSM, 'cause that's the only way to get some attention. If the cables were released only by their own site, maybe 0,001% of the world population would see them, 'cause over 99% of people in the world rely solely on what the MSM says.

Wikileaks quarantees complete anonymity and maximum exposure. How to gain that maximum exposure to leaked stuff if you don't get the press to report it?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
complete anonymity and maximum exposure.

No such thing, well before the 90's at best in the early 80's, they are well within a wall.

Excuse me but I have no idea what you mean. Could you explain please?

Snippet:

Originally posted by NWtoHide
I cannot figure out why Assange would be publishing the documents through the mainstream media.

Is there an explanation as to why he chooses to publish through the MSM in the fashion he does?

To those questioning some of the reasons/motives

Ask yourselves this question...

How many employees are on a full time pay roll within the Wikileaks Organisation?

Not many. There is however hundreds of volunteers who do the actual moderation on the leaks.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Not many. There is however hundreds of volunteers who do the actual moderation on the leaks.

These hundreds of volunteers inside Wikileaks Organisation write all the articles for the afflicated newspapers associated with Wikileaks Organisation?


Disclaimer: < Sometimes I know the answers to the questions I pose lol

No. They just go through the material, verify it and remove street addresses and sometimes names if they think it puts someone in danger. They then just publish the raw data and journalist from press who are not paid by wikileaks do the reporting through media.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Tell me, what is the US government going to do to say the NY Times?

How about the other distribution points?

They CANNOT go for the one, without the other.

NY Times is owned by News Corporation and must apply for a broadcast license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The next round for renewals is 2011-2014.

This is because Assange is a commie/socialist and wants to destroy America.

He gave it to only left wing media outlets so they could have *the scoop* to sell..

In return they gave him money through donations to fatten his pockets as well.

It is all set up and Assange is out not to be fair and equal.

It's to divide and destroy for his Soros backed NWO agenda.

reply to post by NWtoHide


Lets fact it guys,

If Assange has gone down the route of getting his own media outlet set up to disclose the leaks or went to a media outlet outside of what we call the “MSN” then you would all be questioning why he didn’t just write off to the New York Times. Just like the folk that are determined to prove ATS is a CIA front and that I am a NWO shill some people will never be convinced either way because their mind is already made up regardless evidence showing they are wrong.