It's interesting they cut out all the translations.
I also wondered whether it was done in fact via a live video link. If Israel found out about it, it wouldn't take them long to trace the position and assassinate Nasrallah with an air strike. It would be much more practical to just send him the questions and then watch the answers and nod approvingly...
I didn't know that secret locations had access to high bandwidth feeds. It definitely wouldn't be too difficult to figure out where he was. I wonder what web service they used to conduct the interview?
Nasrallah was an interesting person to hear interviewed (though I obviously don't agree with everything that he says). The NYT omits to really mention that you don't hear interviews with him in the west because (AFAIK) it is questionably legal to do so with the leader of a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
Assange asked some difficult questions. I do wonder whether questions were 'agreed' in advance though, or heavily edited, as Narallah turned them around very quickly.
He's not getting in bed with them. I'm sure if he finds he can no longer say what he wants to say he will stop. It's a purely pragmatic decision afaics.
"His reputation has taken a deep plunge since he shook the world in 2010 by releasing, in cooperation with The New York Times and several other news organizations, masses of secret government documents, including battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. Most news organizations edited and redacted the papers to protect lives. Mr. Assange put everything on his Web site."
The author skips the part about how Assange initially published redacted material, but then one of the "other news organizations" published the encryption key to the whole archive, making the redactions irrelevant.
Primarily because Julian Assange is little more than a publicity whore and this latest move is just more evidence of that truth. He's little different than the Kardashians of the world. Moreover, I just don't see how him starting a talkshow is at all "newsworthy."
[Edit] Now that the inevitable down-voting has begun, I'll just comment that when I flag a post, I feel it's reasonable to leave an comment as to why I flagged it. FWIW, I could have just flagged it and let it go without taking the negative hit.
In most cases, I'd agree. But when my flagging corresponds to assaulting someone who many around these parts see as some kind of folk hero, I'm not surprised when some downvotes come simply from people annoyed at me for calling Assange out for being a publicity whore.
That said, my guess is any upvotes are simply people agreeing with me as well.
He always knew that Wikileaks would do this kind of thing to his life but he is totally the man fOr the job. They'll never screen this in Australia but with the power of the internet it doesn't even matter.
17 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] threadIt's interesting they cut out all the translations.
I also wondered whether it was done in fact via a live video link. If Israel found out about it, it wouldn't take them long to trace the position and assassinate Nasrallah with an air strike. It would be much more practical to just send him the questions and then watch the answers and nod approvingly...
Assange asked some difficult questions. I do wonder whether questions were 'agreed' in advance though, or heavily edited, as Narallah turned them around very quickly.
However, they need the money apparently, and I assume this gig pays pretty well.
It just makes him out to be more of an enemy in the eyes of the common American is all I am saying.
He had the support of the people before and not the government. Get in bed with the Russian government and you will lose support of the people too.
"His reputation has taken a deep plunge since he shook the world in 2010 by releasing, in cooperation with The New York Times and several other news organizations, masses of secret government documents, including battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. Most news organizations edited and redacted the papers to protect lives. Mr. Assange put everything on his Web site."
The author skips the part about how Assange initially published redacted material, but then one of the "other news organizations" published the encryption key to the whole archive, making the redactions irrelevant.
Primarily because Julian Assange is little more than a publicity whore and this latest move is just more evidence of that truth. He's little different than the Kardashians of the world. Moreover, I just don't see how him starting a talkshow is at all "newsworthy."
[Edit] Now that the inevitable down-voting has begun, I'll just comment that when I flag a post, I feel it's reasonable to leave an comment as to why I flagged it. FWIW, I could have just flagged it and let it go without taking the negative hit.
That said, my guess is any upvotes are simply people agreeing with me as well.