Categorized | Iraq, Media, Politics, ✞ Fucquis Chenem Dicquat✞ ™
Colbert interviews Julian Assange of Wikileaks
by kellygrrrl
Posted on 14 April 2010 | 6:59 pm 
Print This Post
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Exclusives – Julian Assange Unedited Interview | ||||
|
||||
In a rare moment of serious journalism, Stephen Colbert came out of his typical satirical character to interview Julian Assange, co-director of Wikileaks.
Colbert’s blow-hard character usually just inspires his (mostly-liberal) guests to fall back on tired talking points. But tonight his criticism seemed actually reasonable, and it provided new understanding into Wikileaks and the hybrid form of journalism-advocacy it’s pioneering. We’ll be able to put this understanding to use soon, when Wikileaks unveils video of a U.S. air strike which killed dozens of civilians in Afghanistan.
Some in the media were quick to claim that Assange was lying about the weapons found on the ground at the scene of the massacre. Barrett Brown at True/Slant had this to say:
WikiLeaks head honcho Julian Assange went on The Colbert Report last night with the intention of shoring up his organization’s reputation in the wake of its disastrous handling of the Apache video. But as the Jawa Report notes, Assange simply dug himself into a deeper hole by lying about both the video and the manner in which WikiLeaks chose to present it.
Brown went on to conclude that regardless of the manner in which this particular video footage was edited and presented, Wikileaks provides a profoundly imporant service:
WikiLeaks could very well be the institution to blow cover for some future government-administered action with an effect contrary to the demonstrably fundamental ideals and intents of our republic; our intelligence community in particular has not acted in such a way as to have earned the public trust. Because anyone may see the information released by WikiLeaks for himself and evaluate it for accuracy and implications, the dishonest manner in which certain of the organization’s administrators chose to package this particular piece of information ought not to dissuade anyone from taking seriously the information itself, nor any information it may release in the future. And though criticism of those particular administrators is well-deserved, critics should also keep in mind that WikiLeaks is likely to come through with important discoveries regarding those nations and non-state actors for which even greater criticism is even better-deserved. In the few years that it has been in existence, this institution has served as an overall benevolent force for the citizenry’s legitimate aspirations to know what is being done for them, through them, and to them.
Some are calling Wikileaks paranoid and “Chock Full o’ Nuts.” hmmmmmm
Related posts:
If you liked this article,
This post was written by:
 |
kellygrrrl - who has written 523 posts on Free Range Talk.
|
Submit your own article via this simple form and we will format it for you for publishing.
Jump to Leave New Comment 
Comments
Recent Comments
- on Weekend MODUC President and Chancellor of Community College system resignfollowing CA Chamber of Commerce's end...
- Sadly, yes.
- on Wordsmithery
me either. - Isn't that the truth.
- on WordsmitheryLOL - not sure I want to tackle that one!!
- I'm going to enjoy this a bit later - watching the teevee right now!!!
- on Weekend MODMorons. Inarticulate, uneducated, stupid. Obama is "willfully destroying the country?" "I don't t...
- on Weekend MOD
Was at the gym this morning. Once again, 3 out of 4 teevee stations were tuned to fucksnoise....
Posts
Tags
Authors
Categories
© 2010 Free Range Talk. Powered by your Donations.
241,720 Comments Since March 2009 
-->
(Report comment)
When I had read about this the other evening I thought, oh boy, that Robert Gibbs is gonna have a lot of ’splainin to do.
And then: nothing. Is it real or is it Memorex?
[Reply]
April 15th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
(Report comment)
wait … Gibbs or Gates? This all happened during the Bush Admin., and it was Iraq, from whence we “exit” slowly but surely.
though I admit i would have liked to hear POTUS address this … though I understand why that is not forthcoming.
The Pentagon, on the other hand …
[Reply]
April 15th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
(Report comment)
I did mean Gibbs. I assumed that the WH reporters would have picked up on the Wikileaks story and posed the question(s).
It doesn’t matter, apparently, to neither as no questions were posed. Whether it was on the Bush watch, Obama watch, IS their story/video accurate? Sure looks like it to me. But, I’m a novice.
[Reply]
April 15th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
(Report comment)
it’s def accurate — apparently the only question is as to the editing from 2 hours to 17 minutes.
[Reply]
(Report comment)
Now this I hadn’t heard – there were problems with the wikileaks video of the helicopter murders in Iraq? Too much editing?
Still doesn’t excuse what happened.
[Reply]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
(Report comment)
the video was released in two versions. the whole 2 hours or a 17 minute recap. Most people chose to watch the 17 minute.
Breitbart, of all people, crying foul over editing is laughable.
I confess I did not watch the full length unedited video. I wonder if anyone did, other than Gates and the Pentagon.
[Reply]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
(Report comment)
Oh for god’s sake -well then, of course it had to be edited!!! Who’s going to sit through 2 hours?
[Reply]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
(Report comment)
I think the fact that the events drug out over two hours shows even less judgement and consideration on the part of the chopper crews. They probably had ample time to consider and reconsider their actions.
[Reply]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
(Report comment)
Excellent point.
[Reply]
(Report comment)
Thanks for doing the post Kel, I missed the show last night. An odd duck, that WikiLeaks dude, but he does do great work.
Somewhat o/t, just saw this fly by:
What struck me when looking at the leaked helicopter tape story was the ancillary issue of the Right crying ‘unPatriotic’ when any criticism of the pilots arose. Such a rightwing meme, that libs can’t possibly support the troops like they do. Like only conservatives serve? Gaah.
Likely no surprise, but having a bit of data behind the theory is helpful.
[Reply]
April 14th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
(Report comment)
Keeeeryst! these poor baggers are gnashing and frothing in a rage to protect the multi-millionaires.
Their leaders, Glennduh and Paylin, made 39-million and 12-million respectively in less than a year.
WAKE THE HELL UP, BAGGERS!!!!!
[Reply]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
(Report comment)
They have blinders on. It’s truly astonishing how obtuse they are when it comes to their own interests.
[Reply]
April 15th, 2010 at 9:07 am
(Report comment)
They admire it. They want to be those two, earning that much money, so therefore that’s one reason they enable them.
[Reply]