Assange Battles Tyranny, Champions Truth, and Transparency

There are some colleagues in journalism and members of the media who never cease to amaze with their readiness to compromise journalistic integrity without scrutinizing their moral ethics.

It becomes abundantly evident in their writing, where dishonesty seems to flow through their veins.

Over the past 15 years, Julian Assange has endured smear campaigns, imprisonment, and psychological torture — victimisations that leave observers angry and concerned.

The responses are justified given the global conspiracy by rogue governments to persecute him for exposing their lies, corruption, and criminality.

Currently, Assange languishes in Belmarsh prison in the UK, suffering from deteriorating health and without ever having been criminally charged or convicted. His only "crime," orchestrated by the US, is vastly different from some media portrayals which lack the courage shown by Assange, however, they instead choose to publish derogatory hit pieces.

One example is an article in one of Australia’s leading publications entitled "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s sordid tale of treachery"- it labels Assange as a criminal mastermind, drawing unfair comparisons to notorious historical figures like Vidkun Quisling or Guy Fawkes.

The portrayal of Assange and the narrative presented, not only simplifies but also misleads; it fails to consider the profound impact of WikiLeaks on global transparency and the public's right to know. Assange's initiative was never about aiding enemies but about illuminating the secretive operations of governments, often kept from public scrutiny.

In it, Assange is portrayed as uneducated and arrogant, alleging he aimed to disrupt diplomatic relations.

Its a claim that sharply contrasts with viewing him as a radical advocate for transparency, whose release of hundreds of documents sparked necessary debates on the ethical limits of state secrecy.

To dismiss Assange as reckless overlooks the substantial public debate he’s helped to initiate about balancing national security and transparency—key aspects of a democratic society.

However, to refer to him as merely a "publisher" who carelessly dumped sensitive data online ignores the context of his actions, which were intended to provoke world-wide debate on major significant issues - which is what Assange has managed to achieve.

Furthermore, the article oversimplifies Chelsea Manning's role, reducing her actions to fame-seeking rather than being driven by moral outrage against government crimes. It also attempts to diminish Assange's credibility by focusing on his early years and his asylum period in the Ecuadorian embassy, ignoring how these elements do not detract from the critically important work undertaken by Assange and WikiLeaks.

Rather than attempt to disparage Assange, Assange’s efforts should also seem him be hailed as a hero who has attempted to make governments more transparent and accountable, and not as someone who has endeavoured to "wreck" diplomatic and security frameworks.

What’s a one-sided narrative by the author not only lacks the courage and heroism Assange has displayed, but also fails to recognise the public service he and Wikileaks have provided.

Assange remains in prison and has yet to be criminally charged and has paid a heavy price that few would bewilling to bear.

For Assange’s sacrifice, the world owes him not only itsd gratitude but the immortalisation of his relentless pursuit for truth and transparency.