Julian Assange walks out of CNN interviews

Originally posted by thecinic
Assange derailed this thread when he walked out of the interview with a CNN journalist. We could of been talking FACTS.

Assange has betrayed his followers by having RAPE accusations against him while crying RAPE.

You have got to be joking! What did he do pay somebody to make the rape allegations? Is this all some conspiracy by Assange himself?

How can anybody on this planet be responsible for allegations against him/her by a third unknown party?!?!?!? Does not compute. It's illogical. Nonsense. If the allegations are true, then that's different. However, whilst they are unfounded and remain allegations then the accused has no control whatsover over what they are being accused of.

I could accuse you right now of "something" does that mean that from that moment you have betrayed your family? Of course not that's ridiculous.

The CNN agenda is going further and it's now Larry King going at it tabloid style and pulling very dirty journalist tricks about the matter :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think I can't express how much am utterly disgusted...

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by Oneolddude

 

News flash!

If the feds wanted Assange dead, he would have never lived long enough to see the first Iraq helicopter attack video released, nor would any of his associates, and wikileaks itself would have been long gone.

He has absolutely nothing to worry about.

Agreed. They cannot kill him, that would make him a martyr. It is best to fabricate an embarrassing case instead, and to use every communication means possible to rub the fabricated case into people's faces, tv, internet forums, newspapers, and so on. It's what psyops agents do best, and it works because most people are governed by their emotional responses to information, not logic. The key techniques are appeal to emotions of anger, fear. News, product advertising and political ads do the same.

-rrr

old news he earned a stripe back while on cnn larry king live last night FINALLY saying he didn't do it but he almost walked out before he could spit it out still seems a little suspicous. How about the disccusion not being his failed walk out interview and his interview where atleast he talked with some good manner again....

Must we go there again?

The government won't get rid of him because he holds the insurance files

He won't go to jail for wikileaks or his RAPE accusations that this journalist brought up because he holds
the insurance files.

The government will not have any charges brought against them.

Everyone gets off scott free.

Thanks government thanks wikileaks.. Leave us in the dark again.

Could be staged for ratings.

Was CNN the only US news channel granted an interview?

Because he gave the UK news channels some perfectly good interviews...perhaps because they didn't mention the R word.

done to discredit him in a small way, I would assume!

Originally posted by Soulshock
done to discredit him in a small way, I would assume!

Here an analysis, taken from another forum, from a guy that says he works or used to work for TVs and seem to know about angles/post production tricks and how to have someone look bad on TV :

possibly. probably would have just toned it down a bit. i work in TV. that color slash is quite common, it's just adding some depth/feeling to the background of a picture. what got to me more was 3 other things: the #ty lighting of the girl. she had no background and no depth on her right side. the giant white nothing to her left would have been picked out and a different shot location would be made by anyone who at least went to school for this #. the continuous over the shoulder shot of the reporter. unless there was another cam they were going to cut into (unlikely) then this is very unorthodox. the terrible audio. even with no one mixing the signal, it should not have sounded that #ty. either CNN hired some hack bull# local crew to do the interview, or someone wanted the production value to be crap. for what reason, i could only guess. edit: on second thought, i bet they made it seem like # in post. #ing with the audio, only using the over-the-shoulder cam and never the other cam set in the close up of the reporter (if it existed). #ing with the coloring to make the red slash blare at you. this would make more sense, as when you watch it, you get the feeling of none of it being that professional or credible. this is unprofessional and not credible. this guy is not credible. i should not take him serious. edit 2: ok maybe i'm over analyzing this a bit, but i noticed more: they weren't even using the lav mic on the reporter. you were hearing the secondary shotgun mics mounted on the cams for her audio, which are essentially there as backup in case something gets #ed. it's why she sounds so distant. if her lav were not functional, this would have been caught immediately by any semi-competent crew long before the interview started, or definitely right before the interview started, which would have prompted the crew to fix the issue before they went ahead and started the interview. there is a feedback buzz, normally generated from a power source contaminating an audio line, on julians mic right before he mentions the deaths of the people. this feedback should have been there the whole time if there really was a source of line contamination. i'm treading tinfoil hat territory, but this stuff doesn't add up for me. i'm thinking they intentionally #ed with everything in post.

The above is from : reddit.com

Originally posted by rickyrrr
It is best to fabricate an embarrassing case instead, and to use every communication means possible to rub the fabricated case into people's faces,

If it is indeed a fabricated case, and Julian Assange is all that you say he is, why avoid public discussion of it?

He could bring far more credibility to his "cause" if he were to confront these allegations and expose the "fabricated case" for what you say it is.

He is all about exposing government corruption etc, obviously he has the ability to do it in this case right?

In my opinion it is a whole lot of nothing, no matter how you look at it (a diversionary tactic at best), but in the case of Julian Assange, having him appear as a victim of this evil fabricated plot provides real advantages, especially where public opinion is leaning in his favor, and against the government... A living martyr so to speak.

It makes the leaks seem more genuine and legitimate and less likely that he is simply a tool for the advancement of agendas, intelligence gathering etc.

Also, in my opinion, wikileaks and Julian Assange are not at all what many of you believe they are, and I've seen nothing that would convince me otherwise.

Ever submitted anything to wikileaks "anonymously"?

well i Think that people should watch Dispatches..you can watch it online here...it does go through the documents....and show some footage and is hard to take in some spots.

but it shows contradictions between the Os and what are in the reports.

Does it help to understand i am not sure but watch the whole report here and see for yourselves.

Originally posted by thecinic
Must we go there again?

The government won't get rid of him because he holds the insurance files

He won't go to jail for wikileaks or his RAPE accusations that this journalist brought up because he holds
the insurance files.

So things like a trial and actual evidence proving he's innocent of rape wouldn't even matter to you? You know.. the whole "innocent until poven" guilty thing?

btw. putting RAPE in capital letters does not suddenly make such allegations more factual.. unless your aim is just to slander him.

..I mean SLANDER him. See? neat trick.

With all the BS that dude is dealing with. I don't blame him for walking out. Hell, it is CNN. They need a little disrespect thrown back into their faces here and there. Props to him as he continues to do what HE wants!

reply to post by fortunofiasco


This Julian seems like a gov plant to me.

All to convenient.

His story releases could be there to make people look another way and stop the publicity of something else we all should be hearing about. Sidetracking.

Someone is using this guy to hide something else.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by rickyrrr
It is best to fabricate an embarrassing case instead, and to use every communication means possible to rub the fabricated case into people's faces,

If it is indeed a fabricated case, and Julian Assange is all that you say he is, why avoid public discussion of it?

He could bring far more credibility to his "cause" if he were to confront these allegations and expose the "fabricated case" for what you say it is.

He is all about exposing government corruption etc, obviously he has the ability to do it in this case right?

In my opinion it is a whole lot of nothing, no matter how you look at it (a diversionary tactic at best), but in the case of Julian Assange, having him appear as a victim of this evil fabricated plot provides real advantages, especially where public opinion is leaning in his favor, and against the government... A living martyr so to speak.

It makes the leaks seem more genuine and legitimate and less likely that he is simply a tool for the advancement of agendas, intelligence gathering etc.

Also, in my opinion, wikileaks and Julian Assange are not at all what many of you believe they are, and I've seen nothing that would convince me otherwise.

Ever submitted anything to wikileaks "anonymously"?

How would you prove that something did not happen? how do you prove a negative? It can't be done, You cannot prove innocence. This is why the legal system postulates that you are considered innocent until proven guilty. But this case was not fabricated to bring an indictment. it was just created for the media circus.

You know, the saddest part of all of this is that it * is working *. Here we are ignoring these revelations brought to light by wikileaks because we rather talk about Julian Assange. Myself included!

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr


Well the purpose of this thread is indeed to report about the media manipulation and how the truth is being shrouded.

There is no worries about the files here from us since there are other threads dealing directly about the revelations.
I indeed didn't have in mind to talk (again) about what other threads are talking already.
This is why for example, in this thread i direct people to various other links and mini-amateur investigations I did.

Let me sum them up again for those that didn't take the time to read the whole thread and are joining us now :

1) NYTIMES doing the very same thing as CNN : www.abovetopsecret.com...

2) Example of (on the other hand) proper report by DEMOCRACY NOW (reported by user atlasastro) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

3) Her facebook page and all the angry user comments (very fun to read) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

4) Reminder about presumption of innocence (by user TheDeader) after the thread got hijacked by an obvious troll : www.abovetopsecret.com...

5) Users on her facebook page commenting about the production of the interview showcasing lighting to demonize Assange : www.abovetopsecret.com...

6) Obsession of the journalist with Wikileaks and the sweden incidents (her Twitter page shows 50-60% of her twittings to be about Wikileaks in the last 3 months) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

7) Possible astroturfing and derailment of the comments on the CNN user comment page (reported by user franspeakfree) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

8) Larry King actually asking Assange about the walk out and mistakenly thinking he is doing it again AND using dirty rethoric tricks (another thread moved to another forum) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

9) Another case of a forum user from Reddit explaining his views about the CNN production tricks : www.abovetopsecret.com...

So again : YES, this thread (and the one on Larry King) is about the shrouding (so to speak) of the files, the way the MSM treat the files, but isn't about the files themselves. This can be found in other threads.
Hope this clears it up, I should maybe have been more precise in the original post.

reply to post by fortunofiasco


Keep up the good work mate.



You know wiki is telling people the truth, when you see the effort that is going into discrediting Assange.

Form one ATS member to another, I appreciate the effort you have put in, on this thread.
Thanks.

reply to post by thecinic


You are the hammer that hit the nail on the head.... What kind of hypocrite is Julian Assange, he is being investigated for rape and sexual molestation. What would he say if someone released all of the files relating to that story. Well we know the answer now. He'd run away crying. Hey Julian, you happily release information that can easily destroy other peoples lives, but when confronted about your own issues you pout and run away.

As for the journalist in question... Good on her, how many times has journalist given an interview under false pretenses in order to get to a different story. We at ATS thrive on stories that start that way. We have all heard enough about the disclosure in Wiki-leaks, what else could he have really added anyway. I want to know about the people behind those leaks. Who they are, are they trustworthy? I am well aware that the charges could stain Mr. Assange and Wiki leaks, but he could have used that interview to defend himself and clear the air.

reply to post by palg1

If Assange can find info on Killings, why cant you or the Gov find info on the rape rather than just talking about the issue.

wow

I think one big thing missed by everyone in this debate over these rape allegations being used to discredit him is the target audiences, and how effective it is being.

"Mainstreamers" who follow CNN and the like, now see Assange as a potential rapist who is avoiding the subject, discrediting him.

People previously sitting on the fence regarding Assange/Wikileaks, or at least who saw merit to the leaks despite his motivations, are now leaning away from support, also seeing this as discrediting.

The "crazy fringe paranoid conspiracist" types who maintain that he is a hero of sorts are not going to be swayed by these allegations anyways, leaving only this easily demonized group as his support, which, in the eye of the mainstream media followers further serves to discredit him.

You see similar tactics used against 9/11 truthers, Ron Paul supporters, etc; relegate the support to a group that is easily demonized, and the sheeple will laugh it off and go about their day, without thinking for themselves.

As a disclaimer, these are largely generalizations, but group think and the need to stick by and support your community not only despite opposition but moreso because of it, largely forces people sitting on the fence to choose a side.

I think Julian hit the nail on the head in ways he didn't even mean when he referred to himself as a 'lightning rod' for wikileaks. TPTB are discrediting him to distract from and discredit Wikileaks.