Bill Keller's Character Assassination Hatchet-Job on Julian Assange

"There is, to be sure, a substantial constituency for press-bashing. And I acknowledge that the press can be annoying, simplistic, predictable, herdlike, insatiable, imperious, sloppy and mean. I've long argued that every budding journalist should have the chastening experience of being written about.[sic]" -Bill Keller, New York Times Magazine, June 19,2011, p. 12.

Imperious is something the Times inherently is. So here's an example of mean.

Bill Keller, the top boss editor of the New York Times, did a breathtaking thing on Sunday, Jan. 30. He put a nasty, petty, adolescent-style piece of invective against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on the front page of that rag's magazine section. This is one of the paper's number one attention-getting forum, along with the front page of Sunday's news section.

To illustrate the pathetic level of insult Keller is operating on, I'll quote the key words on the cover and highlighted in large summary quotes within the article:

First, the title: "The Boy Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest: Dealing With Julian Assange and His Secrets."

So right off the bat, Assange is branded a reckless delinquent, a BOY (demeaning) who behaves irresponsibly and brings trouble upon himself. (So if I guess if the U.S. carries out its threats to murder or imprison him, it'll be his own fault.) He's not a man who courageously exposes the secrets of the U.S. Empire. (Well, as the NYT is regarded as the top propaganda organ of that very empire, what can you expect?) Assange, a 39-year-old man, is a "boy," as contrasted to the mature, "responsible" propaganda boss Keller, eh?

The table of contents summarizes thusly: "Is Julian Assange the great puppet master of the news media? He would like you to think so. [Oh would he? I never got that impression. But unlike the typical Times' reader, I've had the opportunity to hear him speak at length, via the "alternative" media.] But The Times's dealings with him reveal a different story." Do tell, Keller.

Then we come to the story, illustrated with drawings of Assange that start out unflattering and progress to grotesque, including one with "j'accuse j'assange" plastered over his face.

Just so you don't miss it, Keller arranged for the following pullquotes from the article to be boldfaced and set apart:

"'He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. HE SMELLED AS IF HE HADN'T BATHED IN DAYS.'"

They put that last bit in caps, just so, and in RED so you wouldn't miss it.

Here's the next highlighted segment:

"An air of intrigue verging on paranoia permeated the project. We used encrypted Web sites. Reporters exchanged notes via Skype. On conference calls, WE SPOKE IN AMATEURISH CODE."

There they go with the red again.

Maybe Keller should have shared his professional code with Assange. Of course, if Keller is so amateurish that he doesn't understand the need for security, then he obviously is a walking illustration of the Peter Principle- a man who has risen above his level of competence.

Paranoia? Prominent people in the U.S. openly called for Assange's assasination. The U.S. secret police and military have repeated launched cyberattacks against WikiLeaks. We only now a tiny fraction of the persecution and harassment WikiLeaks has been subjected to.

From start to finish, the piece is a pure hit job. Amazing that Keller undertook this character-assassination piece personally. That indicates the malevolence he feels for Assange. (He apparently hates Arianna Huffington too- in another Sunday mag. piece, he repeatedly stuck a shiv in her too.)

The U.S. has a history of murdering journalists who cross it. They have repeatedly bombed Al-Jazeera offices, murdering their personnel. They attacked the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad,. murdering two European journalists. WikiLeaks itself showed the world video footage of U.S. helicopter pilots gleefully slaughtering 2 Reuters journalist and other Iraqis in Baghdad, then attacking people who came to their aid, wounding children in the process. The crime of the victims? Walking down the street in the middle of the day. And the punishment for the murderers? Nothing- but the suspected exposer of this crime, Private Bradley Manning, is facing life in prison (the gangster U.S. Government kindly decided not to seek the death penalty) as they subject him to systematic psychological torture to break him. And there are numerous other lethal attacks on journalists by the U.S. (An Al-Jazeera cameraman was imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp for 6 years, while they pumped him for information on Al-Jazeera's operations and tried to force him to be a spy inside Al-Jazeera as the price of his freedom. Amazingly, he didn't break.)

Yes, gangster is the right word for these cynical thugs. Anyway, what do you call people who kill for money? Gangsters. And that is what U.S. foreign policy is all about; maximizing the profit of hugh corporations and financial parasites by making sure every country is ruled by a cooperative regime, as much as possible.
                                             

                                                                    THE NY TIMES' VIEW OF JULIAN ASSANGE

        These are some of the crude, derogatory images the "newspaper of record" cooked up to go with Keller's hatchet job.

I started this piece with a quote from Keller about his belief that it's salutary for journalists to "have the chastening experience of being written about." Well, "Bill," consider yourself chastised, although I'm sure you aren't chastened.