Australian Media's Ruthless Assault on Assange

It seems the green-eyed monster of envy within Australia’s less than celebrated media circles are lining up to do their bit to disparage WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. 

If anyone was expecting some within Australia’ media would appreciate Assange as a hero, and what he’s done for humanity and freedom of speech, and the right for governments to be held to account and transparency, then delusion should be set aside for other matters.  

Many of those attacking Assange are probably the same journalists who would have steadfastly demonised him for no other reason than jealousy, an inability to ‘do good journalism’, understand what it means to be a journalist and accepting the directive of corrupt government to do their bidding.  

The slurs and attacks Assange has endured since returning home to Australia, with various journalists calling him a criminal while others have alleged accusations of contributing to murder, are indicative of the irresponsible and sensationalist behavior of some in the media, who seem more intent on demonizing him than on providing balanced and fair reporting.  

Assange has been back in Australia no more than 50-hours and the baying troglodytes with less than impressive journalistic careers, have sought to take a meat cleaver to Assange’s character and assassinate him anyway they can with fabricated narratives. 

If the American Government failed to kill Assange, then various elements of Australia’s media are doing their best to character assassinate him.  

Only a couple of days ago I wrote a piece about two AAP journalists who collaborated on a piece to discredit Assange and describing him as a criminal.  However, the Daily Telegraph’s James Morrow, took it another step further.  

“Chief Little Hands” as one would describe Morrow - insipidness of the pathetic always seems to conjure up images of people with tiny hands like Mr Burns out of the Simpsons, paints a clear picture of their character.  

Morrow’s piece in the Daily Telegraph entitled “Why Julian Assange should not be lionised” is a classic example of sensationalist journalism that lacks depth and fairness.

Morrow’s attempt to vilify Assange, employs misleading narratives and selective reporting - deliberately ignoring the broader context and the crucial role Assange and WikiLeaks have played in exposing government corruption and promoting transparency.

What can only be described as an appalling hit piece on Julian Assange, Morrow highlights the tragic case of Majid Jamali Fashi, claiming Fashi's execution was directly linked to unredacted WikiLeaks cables. However, the assertion is speculative, with there never being any concrete evidence proving WikiLeaks was responsible for Fashi’s fate. 

The claim oversimplifies complex geopolitical dynamics and unfairly scapegoats IAssange without acknowledging the oppressive actions of the Iranian regime itself which Fashi was subjected to. Its  speculation, presented as fact and a hallmark of poor journalism.

Morrow then cites the case of five gay men in Saudi Arabia, alleging WikiLeaks' actions led to their persecution, once again, he fails to provide any concrete evidence linking these incidents directly to WikiLeaks. 

Moreover, he neglects to mention the broader systemic issues within Saudi Arabia that put LGBTQ+ individuals at risk, regardless of WikiLeaks. His focusing solely on Assange, Morrow is diverting  attention from repressive governments who undermine the gravity of these human rights violations.

Portraying Assange as a callous individual who dismisses the lives of Afghan informants is further example of selective quoting and context omission. The statement attributed to Assange — “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them”— is not only highly contentious but again lacks context. 

Responsible journalism requires a full presentation of facts and context, something Morrow conspicuously avoids. Furthermore, Morrow’s argument that Assange and WikiLeaks are tools of anti-Western propaganda is both simplistic and misleading. WikiLeaks has exposed a wide range of government misconduct, not limited to any single nation. 

By cherry-picking instances where WikiLeaks declined to publish certain documents, ignores the organisations extensive track record of holding powerful entities accountable, including those in the West. Its selective reporting that only serves to skew public perception rather than inform it.

Morrow's attack extends to questioning Assange's affiliations, including his show on a Kremlin-backed network. This ad hominem approach distracts from the substantive contributions of WikiLeaks. It’s disingenuous to dismiss the significance of WikiLeaks’ revelations by attacking Assange’s character or associations. Morrow’s style of journalism and the tactics he employs are unbecoming of serious journalism and serve only to obscure the real issues at hand.

Furthermore, Morrow’s piece attempts to politicise Assange's situation, suggesting his release is a capitulation to political pressures. Morrow’s interpretation isn’t only speculative but detracts from the legitimate legal and ethical debates surrounding Assange’s detention and the broader implications for press freedom. 

It’s crucial to recognise the support for Assange transcends political affiliations and harboured in fundamental principles of transparency and accountability.

Morrow’s attempted hit piece is an example of poor journalism. It relies on speculative connections, selective reporting, and ad hominem attacks to build a narrative against Assange. 

Balanced and responsible reporting would consider the present evidence-based arguments and engage with the complex ethical issues surrounding WikiLeaks and press freedom.