Category Archives: wikileaks

The BBC Celebrates WikiHacks Again

By | | , ,
8 Comments

Check out how the BBC reflexively sides with WikiHacks and their publishing of stolen emails from Stratfor.  Stratfor is not a government agency, and has not been accused of any crime, yet the BBC opens the piece by describing WikiHacks as a “whistleblowing website”. Of course, anyone who is aware of boss Julian Assange’s open declaration that his intent is to harm US geopolitical goals will know what his real agenda is here.

In any case, in stark contrast to their treatment of the leaked CRU emails (there is still not a single scrap of evidence that they were stolen), the BBC sees nothing wrong – declines to editorialize against, really – with the fact that WikiHacks got the Stratfor emails from the hacker group, Anonymous, who admits to illegally obtaining the emails, along with credit card numbers and other data.

Notice also the accompanying photo of a gently beaming, serene St. Julian. Selecting photos is an editorial decision, one which can influence the readers’ interpretation of a story.

St. Julian is on record, we’re told, as stating that some of the far-left activist groups on which Stratfor was gathering information are “fighting for a just cause”. So it’s not so much whistleblowing as it is an attempt to undermine a political enemy. But never mind, he’s still a hero to the BBC for doing it. To further cast aspersions on Stratfor – the victim of a crime here – we even get a quote from Barron’s that the organization is a kind of “shadow CIA”. Just so you all know who the real bad guys are here, and to re-inforce the false description of WikiHacks as whistleblowers.

Then comes the outrageous bit:

Despite the new disclosures, Wikileaks is still facing difficulties on several fronts.

Despite? Despite releasing stolen information from an organization not of the Left, BBC?  In other words, the Beeboid who wrote this – and an approving editor – believe that releasing stolen emails from Stratfor should go a long way towards rehabilitating WikiHacks in the public eye. This is the BBC taking sides against Stratfor and in favor of WikiHacks.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Journalistic Double Standards at the BBC Due to Ideology

By | | , , , , , ,
13 Comments

As everyone here knows by now – but people who rely on the BBC for their information will not – the US Justice Department has collaborated with the Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan Police to seize computers and a router from UK citizen Roger Tattersall, who runs the truth-seeking blog Tallbloke’s Talkshop, under the moniker, “Tallbloke”. Tattersall is one of a handful of climate truth-seekers* who had a link to the ClimateGate2 emails posted by a third party on their blogs.

The BBC defined the first release of ClimateGate emails in 2009 as “stolen” and “hacked”. Even though they didn’t actually know what happened. As part of the investigation into what the BBC has described as the stolen emails, the UK authorities asked the US Justice Dept. to instruct WordPress, where Climate Audit is hosted, to hand over all blog records during the days leading up to “FOIA” posting a link to the emails. Tallbloke has posted the legal notice on his blog.

So far, there has been utter silence from the BBC. This is not exactly like WikiHacks abetting Pvt. Bradley Manning’s illegal acquisition – honest people would call it theft – of all that Dept. of Defense data, which was subsequently published by St. Julian Assange and his crew.  In Manning’s case, he was arrested for actually stealing the data, and Assange has been indicted for knowingly receiving stolen goods and publishing it. Even today, the BBC defines that data instead as “leaked:”. The double standard is clear. It’s an editorial choice, driven by the biases of the BBC staff involved. Anyone doing a search of “Manning” and “leaked” on the BBC website will see loads of evidence. The opposite is true for ClimateGate.

Tattersall has not stolen anything, has not published anything, and was not responsible for “FOIA” posting a link to it on his blog. All he did was report that it had happened, and report on the emails after he saw them. Just like the BBC did with the documents Manning stole and Assange published. Today, as it happens, St. Julian has gotten a break in his appeal against being extradited to Sweden, and the BBC is all over it, making sure everyone still has hope for this heroic figure. At the same time, Manning is back in the news because his pre-trial hearing is starting.  As I write this, the BBC News Channel just referred to his act as “leaking”. It now seems to be enshrined in the BBC style guide.

Now Mark Mardell is asking if Manning is a hero or a villain.We know that certain Beeboids think Assange is one.

Pte Manning is the intelligence analyst who US authorities suspect of being behind the hugely embarrassing Wikileaks releases. He was arrested in Iraq last May for illegally downloading material from America’s secret internet network.

Mardell admits it was illegal, which is refreshing. Notice, though, the pathetic editorializing of referring to Defense Dept. classified documents as “America’s secret internet”.

To some he is a hero, to others a villain.

Many in America will feel, if he is guilty, it is quite clear that he is a traitor who has broken his vows to his country and deserves harsh punishment. Some have even said what he and Wikileaks have done amounts to terrorism.

The defence may choose to paint a picture of a disturbed young man, sensitive and gay adrift in a macho culture. They are likely to bring up allegations that he has been subjected to deliberately punitive detention in a military brig.

Get out the tiny violins, folks. None of this justifies breaking the law in any situation. It’s especially ridiculous to use “punitive detention” as an excuse for something he’s already done. But never mind that. The fact that Mardell and the BBC are happy to give voice to those who declare Manning – and by extension, Assange – a hero.  Can someone show me a single example of the BBC giving the same time for praise of a single climate truth-seeker or someone who says we have a right to see the UEA and other climate scientists’ data, as well as their work?

No, of course there isn’t any. The BBC Trust even declared that they don’t have to give time to those voices. And they got a Warmist to do a report saying they need to be even more biased. To the BBC, releasing the ClimateGate emails was wrong, and harmful, and we have no right to see any of it.

Again as I write this, the BBC is giving air time to someone declaring Manning as a hero, a champion for justice and the US Constitution. Another Beeboid in the US got the quote, and has made a separate report saying the exact same thing Mardell did.

Here’s Mardell again on Manning:

But it will be interesting if they put the main point of his many supporters – that what Manning did transcends legal rules and national interests, that information wants to be free, and that truth is more important than government’s desire to keep something secret.

Behind this is a specific allegation – that orders to Manning were illegal.

And there you have the BBC’s Narrative as well. Mardell is at the trial today, and has reported from there for the BBC News Channel as it gets underway. He repeated what he said in his blog, that the defense is that no damage was done by publishing the documents. Funny how that’s exactly the line ex-Beeboid and now Democrat strategist, Katie Connolly, tried to push a year ago. Manning wouldn’t have done this without knowing that Assange would publish it. What the BBC never told you is that Assange’s stated goal is to harm US interests. So it doesn’t matter whether or not any harm was done. An attempted crime is still an illegal act. Mardell knows this – he reads the Washington Post – but curiously leaves that out of his anaylsis. Only one side is given: Manning’s.

Manning and Assange are in the news, and the BBC sees no parallel between their cases and what has happened to Tattersall, someone who has neither stolen, nor published, nor abetted anyone doing either, emails which are not classified.

So where is the BBC reporting on the legal action taken against a UK citizen for being tangentially involved in the publishing of emails from the climate scientists? This is the top level of US government helping to seize personal property from a UK citizen for something someone else did, and over which he had no control. Nobody could have prevented “FOIA” from posting a link on their blog. It’s intimidation at best, oppression at worst. Where’s Rory Cellan-Jones on this? He’s all about freedom of publishing whatever one likes when it’s a paedophile handbook. One would have thought that the Beeboids who were so angry about the emails being published would be eager to jump on someone connected to it. Yet they haven’t made a sound.  Don’t want to give any more air time to “opponents of the consensus”, I guess, as reporting on it would open up discussion about what happened, and the fact that there is evidence of fraud contained within.

A clear double-standard of reporting on the publishing of non-public emails. It’s all driven by the personal ideology of BBC employees. They support St. Julian, so sanitize his publication of classified documents. They support Warmism, so demonize the publication of their emails. This latest round of releases sure hasn’t gotten much play by the BBC. They made a big deal about the arrest of Pvt. Manning for actually stealing classified documents, but are completely silent when international authorities collude to seize private property, as well as server records, of someone who did absolutely nothing, and was only a spectator of an act which may not even be illegal. I understand that there’s so much big news to report today that there isn’t time to do a main report on it.  But why isn’t this worth even the tiniest of news briefs on the website?

When will the BBC start honestly reporting about what’s been going on? If anything, Tallbloke and whoever “FOIA” is are the real heroes. They’re seeking the truth, and informing us all about real law breaking, real collusion to produce agenda-driven data with which to influence governments. They’re seeking truth about the data the UN and all of our respective sovereign governments are using to oppress us, to reduce us, and to control our behavior. The BBC abets this, and tries instead to demonize or suppress information to the contrary.  If it ultimately turns out that these truth-seekers are wrong, that still doesn’t make them criminals for seeking the truth. Yet that’s not how they’re treated by the BBC, in stark contrast to how they treat an actual criminal, and a man who has openly stated his desire to harm US interests.


UPDATE: Now I know why the US Government is involved. One key revelation in the ClimageGate2 emails is that the US Dept. of Energy was colluding with Phil Jones to hide data that harmed the cause, and would give fodder to truth-seekers. The same Dept. of Energy which has thrown $4.7 billion down the Green Energy toilet to Obamessiah moneymen was funding some of Jones’ research. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?

* I refuse to use the term “climate skeptic”, as once one starts using one’s opponents terms, the argument has already been lost. From now on, I’m going to use the term “climate truth-seeker” or similar.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Wikileaks In The Telegraph? Meh.

By | | ,
Comments Off on Wikileaks In The Telegraph? Meh.

Julian Assange has taken his latest batch of documents to the Telegraph:

WikiLeaks documents that disclose how British ministers secretly advised Libya on securing the successful early release of the Lockerbie bomber demonstrate that Tony Blair’s Government was “playing false” over the issue, Alex Salmond has said.

The BBC response so far:


Apart from a brief mention during one of the paper reviews on Today this morning I haven’t seen or heard anything about this on the BBC. How very different to the headline treatment given to similar recent Guardian stories (Wikileaks, Palestinian papers). In those cases the BBC seemed to be in the loop, primed and ready for action as soon as the early editions were out. Now that the Telegraph is splashing with Wikileaks revelations the BBC appears slow to react and uninterested. The fact that the latest documents are embarrassing to Labour could be a contributing factor too.

No doubt something will appear eventually, but one gets the impression there’s a greater sense of urgency at the BBC when the Guardian is involved in these stories. Apparently there are more important things to report on today, such as the suspension of a principal from a minor Scottish university.

Update: The BBC’s Wikileaks page hasn’t been updated for a while:

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

SAINT JULIAN OF ASSANGE DAY

By | |
14 Comments

Well, it’s pretty easy to work out what the BBC finds so attractive about Wikileaker Julian Assange. His viscerally anti-American agenda was always going to resonate with the BBC so he was afforded two interview spots on Today this morning as John Humphyrs travelled to his mansion to pay seasonal homage to him. There was SO much wrong with this simpering interview not least the way in which the BBC insists that Wikileaks is a “whistle-blowing” website when it is not. It is much closer to a criminal conspiracy that accepts hacked and stolen information but so long as the US is the victim, who cares, right? Assange is able to suggest that he cannot justice in Sweden hence his attempt to avoid being sent there to face the serious allegations concerning sexual assault and the entire interview was set up as a soapbox for the peculiar ego-tripper Assange.
  

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Censorship: WikiHacks Edition

By | | ,
39 Comments

Last week, as the BBC ramped up its mission to downplay the potential consequences of the stolen documents published by hacker and alleged rapist Julian Assange, JournoList groupie and partisan Katie Connolly produced the following article:

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

Following the open angry statements by various US officials is a series of foot-shuffling and “can’t say, guv”s. In short, the message here is there’s no way to be sure or prove that there is blood on this innocent lamb’s hands.

Except here’s what Connolly and the BBC don’t want you to know: Assange has form.

Back in 2007, WikiHacks released documents about corruption in Kenya.

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. “1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,” says Assange. It’s a chilling statistic, but then he states: “On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased.”

A responsible, honest news organization would mention this little fact in an article asking in its headline if WikiHacks cost lives. Yet the BBC chose to censor this information. In fact, unless it was covered in some broadcast or other now lost to the ether (and/or BBC archives inaccessible to the public without an FOI request), they only mentioned what WikiHacks did in Kenya once, and – what a shock – chose to play down any consequences.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WICKEDLEAKS…

By | |
7 Comments

Well, another day and another set of Wikileaks. Is it me or do you sense that the BBC delights in trawling through these illegal leaks that are now quite obviously aimed at embarrassing and undermining the United States? I suppose there is a natural resonance between Assange’s visceral hatred of the United States and the BBC’s default position of liking anything that seeks to undermine the USA? Tough call for the State Broacaster – Obama or Assange. I think the latter wins?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Silent on Wikileaks Fingering of the Coalitions Covert Afghan Helpers

By | | ,
16 Comments

BBC World Service on Wikileaks: “Are you glad this information is public?” (No bets being taken on how the BBC would answer that question – almost all the reporting has been solemn but with that classic BBC edge of implicit approval. The Beeb loves leaks unless, of course, they are about their top level salaries, bonuses and expenses…)

The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel have published more than 92,000 secret military files from the website Wikileaks detailing the war in Afghanistan. The news has got you divided.

mmmm….no need to read the comments, almost all from Dave and Deirdre Spart.

But so far haven’t noticed much about this aspect of the leaks from the lovable Swede, Julian Assange, in the BBC.

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Expect Taliban revenge attacks on many individuals soon. Moreover how many Afghans would now be willing to work covertly with coalition forces now they realise that Mr Assange will always be willing to finger them?

Never mind, although many individuals and their families will die as a result of this (quickly if they are lucky, more slowly if the Taliban stick to their preferred modes) the chattering classes in NW1 who the BBC exists to serve will rest easy. As the Coalition weakens in its resolve (the main aim of the BBC over Iraq and Afghanistan for these last few years) an exodus of pro Coalition Afghans will provide a nice source of cheap labour for the chattering class’s servant pool

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.