Let It Snow

First Gladys and Marvin, now Alan and a flock of notables...

Get It Try It

THE INTERTUBES (Rixstep) — Noted reporter Stefania Maurizi published an interview with Julian Assange on 23 December. It's been read tens of thousands of times. Seasons greetings, everyone!

Give a real estate agency half an inch and they'll build a parking lot, so they say, but the Rag of Rusbridger and Leigh don't need even that. Their friends in the US/UK MSM make it still worse.

The Guardian's hysteria against Assange is no news, and its origins are well known, even though any number of self-appointed experts, who don't even know how to 'source' material, are incapable of thinking that far. But that the maniacal forces behind the Clinton machine should get involved... This year, 2016, is unique in so many ways.

Prompting someone as far away as Sweden to get involved.

Here comes Flashback's historian 'Okynne' ('Mischief') with a refreshing analysis.

Our media won't write about Assange just because there's news to report. They'll wait until there's something that fits into their narrative, something that's already been done by the MSM in the US or the UK.

If our media were interested in reporting on Assange, they'd have reported on (Stefania Maurizi's) big interview in Repubblica? But that's not happening, is it?

I predict that Swedish media will at some point refer to her interview, but they'll never, heavens no, quote it directly.

Assange says in the interview that it's hard to know what will happen with Trump at 1600, but there is more chance for change, both for better and for worse, than there would have been with Hillary.

Quote:
Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better.



But when the GUARDIAN report on Stefania's interview, their headline reads 'Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview'. And when THE HILL report on the Guardian reporting on the interview, they twist things further to 'Assange praises Trump for bringing opportunities for change'.

This fits nicely in the media's manufactured narrative of how WikiLeaks and Assange would somehow support Trump, something that's an obviously totally bonkers claim for anyone who follows events even a bit more closely.

THE HILL write that Stefania's interview 'was first reported by the Guardian', and that's typical! The interview hasn't really taken place until the US/UK MSM write about it and tell their readers what the narrative's to be. Now even our own Swedish wire service can report 'according to the Guardian...'

Outrageous how my interview with Julian Assange is distorted.
 - Stefania Maurizi

See Also
Repubblica/Maurizi: Julian Assange: 'Donald? It's a change anyway'
Rixstep Learning Curve: Who wouldn't shout with the stakes so high