|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)
Swedish Media Report on Assange Statement
72 for 18.
STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — As Rolf Söderberg pointed out recently, Swedish media have played a significant role in the treatment of Assange, just as they did in the Quick scandal, the Butt scandal, and perhaps most of all the da Costa scandal, where respected reporter Olle Andersson said he could almost see 'the media's vitriol dripping down the walls'.
On 7 December 2016, Julian Assange chose to finally release his statement on his version of the August 2010 events that led to his persecution by the maniacal Marianne Ny for the past six years.
He waited until now because it's not until now that he's been allowed to make a formal statement.
Assange attempted repeatedly back in August and September 2010 to submit his version of events to the strange Ny, but was denied on all occasions, resulting in his asking her if she even wanted him around. Once she'd issued the questionable Red Notice for his apprehension because she now wanted his statement, he started exploring ways to submit this to her without jeopardising his safety for a US more and more out of control.
After successfully undermining due process for another fifteen months once even Swedish courts had had enough of her, Ny finally relented and sent her deputy Ingrid Isgren to London.
But there was a catch. (With Marianne Ny there always is.)
Julian's public defender, the acclaimed Per E Samuelson, was prevented by Ny from being present for the 'interview'.
But Julian had a response at the ready: a magnificent 19-page document that lays to rest essentially all remaining questions about the sordid affair.
Perhaps the greatest eye-opener comes via the notorious SMS messages. Ny has done all she can to stop these messages from being entered into the public record, and now we all know why.
Employing memory training akin to that used by Blackjack players, Assange attorneys Per E Samuelson and Thomas Olsson ('PESTO') were able to report accurately on a great number of the messages in question.
What emerges from reading this traffic is a spectre of two extremely self-centred women who have no clue about the bigger picture and no respect for the rights of others, two 'women' who are prepared to act in an almost psychopathic way.
The complete statement is a major achievement, meticulously prepared and copyedited, and hopefully will serve to turn the page on this most sordid and shameful chapter in Sweden's indefensible sycophancy towards the US.
But as Rolf Söderberg pointed out, it's not only the custodians of Swedish state power who have been at fault. As in the above cited cases - Quick, Butt, da Costa, and more - it's almost the media more than the corrupt judiciary behind it all.
Once the Assange statement was published on 7 December, the Swedish MSM took to the task of dutifully reporting on this important event. (Normally the Swedish MSM will not report on anything related to WikiLeaks unless absolutely forced, out of fear of 'blowing their cover'. This of course was such an occasion.)
Expressen is the rabid Bonnier evening tabloid that more or less defines (and forms) the national mindset. They're part of the technically illegal TV4 Group which dominate through control of the news, the cinema, book publication, and more. Expressen is of course the rag that decided to flagrantly defy publicist ethics by blasting Assange's name out on the morning of 21 August 2010 because, as they later admitted, it was the biggest scoop in their entire publishing history.
Reading through the Expressen report on the publication of the Assange statement becomes a lesson in the art of propaganda. Having a differing opinion with regard to commonly accepted facts is one thing, but that doesn't work for Expressen, so they like to change the facts first - in an ever so subtle way - before pretending to opine impartially on them.
'The Swedish judicial process against Julian Assange is a drawn-out affair where the WikiLeaks founder has refused to surrender to Swedish justice.'
'But after several discussions, Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren traveled to London in November to question him at the Ecuador embassy.'
[Note how Marianne Ny's name is omitted and how her dirty tactics at undermining even Swedish judicial process - not so speak of United Nations sanctions - is reduced to 'several discussions'.]
'Assange gave a detailed statement, according to the Independent...'
[No, he published the statement online, and Expressen computers will not implode if actual source links are used.]
'It was Expressen who on 20 August 2010 could first report that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia, suspected of rape after two women had filed complaints against him.'
[The article in question appeared first at 05:00 on Saturday morning 21 August 2010, not the day before, but was predated by the rag's highly ethical team.]
Call in the Lush!
Any opportunity they can get to use the human sponge Claes Borgström, they'll take it. They'll most often not meet him in person, because he's often drunk as a skunk.
[Borgström was the key player behind the Quick scandal, profiting astronomically from the affair, and under increased pressure from an angry media and public, he seized the opportunity to attack and switch the focus to Assange.]
Borgström, who is officially public defender of Sweden's notorious Toblerone lady Mona Sahlin, essentially tells Expressen that 'Assange's truth is not my client's truth', even though he has nothing more to do with the case.
Expressen next move to MARIANNE NY, who, shockingly, says she has 'no comments'. But they were able to get direct contact with a spokesperson at her office, a Robin Simonsson, who couldn't even say if Ny had read the document. (Note that it's been a month since Assange submitted the statement, but Ny is known to often be away on scheduled holidays.) Expressen add that Ny is waiting on an official translation (first English to Spanish then Spanish to Swedish) of the November interview, and - what a choice of words - add that 'Marianne will then decide whether to continue or close the investigation'.
SvD, or Svenska Dagbladet, is Sweden's secondary morning broadsheet, owned today by the Norwegian Schibsted empire, and not the pervasive Bonniers. Generally, SvD are the least slanted rag of the major 4, although exceptions can occur.
This report is based on a report from Sweden's own wire service TT (Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå) which has come under intense criticism for not 'sticking to facts'.
This report is relatively fair and therefore extraordinarily sparse. When you want to try to preserve your journalistic integrity but simultaneously don't want to pass on anything that makes WikiLeaks look good, you have to keep things to a minimum.
DN.se, or Dagens Nyheter, is Sweden's #1 morning broadsheet, the flagship of the Bonnier empire, and is currently being run by a rabid Russia hater known colloquially as 'Wolo'. This is the crazed fanatic who declares openly that he is running things 'with an agenda', this because his superiors succeeded in achieving an extralegal agreement with the previous government to allow illegal Bonnier majority ownership of the TV4 Group, in return for new federal legislation that discarded earlier judicial sanctions against outright propaganda, propaganda the Bonniers would use to keep said government in power as long as possible, this because the government before that, run by another political faction, were about to file charges against them for illegal majority ownership of the TV4 Group. Works nicely.
The DN.se report is written by Stefan Lisinsky, who is a bit of a 'black sheep' at the corporation. Lisinsky had been digging into the corruption in the Assange case, focusing at first on the 'fake rape certificates' issued at one of the capital's major hospitals, when he was warned that the woman behind this conspiracy was in fact married to the paper's chief legal advisor, the infamous Peter Danowsky known from the trial of the Pirate Bay. Lisinsky chose to close down his research at this time.
But Lisinsky has a terrible habit of trying to stick to the truth if he can, and so cites the original source in his report rather than getting his coals from the Independent.
The document does not reveal what questions were asked of Assange, a subtle point that Grauniad's Crouch deftly sidestepped.
Lisinsky goes into greater detail than the others, and has the decency to directly link to the statement, but not much more is permitted by his superiors.
Were the 'crazy neolibs' in the US and elsewhere able to understand Swedish, it's fairly certain they'd visit Aftonbladet morning noon and night.
Aftonbladet is part of the Schibsted empire today, but run in a very different fashion than the more mature sibling SvD.
Aftonbladet's report is a meagre 200 words, but they go in bold right from the start.
'Rape suspect Julian Assange published his version of what happened more than six years ago. Sweden's Prosecution Authority will not comment on his stunt.'
After that, things can only go downhill. Political tool and attack dog Elisabeth Massi Fritz, who once made a name by defending a relative of the former prime minister for drink driving, and who ever since has tried to keep extending her fifteen minutes of fame by making controversial and outrageous statements to the media, who reportedly has difficulties keeping staff with her maniacal temperament, was of course called upon for a scorpion-type sound bite.
'Assange is desperate', quips the harridan, along with 'Assange is not very believable', and 'we'll prove this once he's brought to trial'.
Aftonbladet of course refused to link to the actual statement, and refused to even link to the report by the Independent. The less they have to give info to people, the better. That's true neolib paradise.
I want him, I want him.
- Sofia Wilén, 14 August 2010