The World Tomorrow: Julian Assange proves a useful idiot

The WikiLeaks founder's Hezbollah interview on his TV show debut leaves Luke Harding with more questions than answers

It was billed as Julian Assange's "explosive" TV debut. The choice of word was perhaps unfortunate given that the first guest on Assange's much-hyped interview show, The World Tomorrow, was Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shia militant group Hezbollah.

The Kremlin propaganda channel Russia Today has exclusive initial rights to the show, broadcast for the first time on Tuesday around the world. To be fair, Assange had scored a genuine coup. Nasrallah last spoke to the media six years ago. The interview was conducted via a video link – Assange was in Norfolk, his guest at a secret location, presumably Beirut. (The portly cleric clearly doesn't get out much, and spends most of his time underground, dodging Israeli missiles.)

But Assange's debut interview wasn't quite the incendiary event that Russia Today had promised. The questions were clearly agreed in advance. Some were softball, others fawning, with Nasrallah's answers unchallenged.

The White House won't have liked what it saw: at one point the editor of WikiLeaks called Nasrallah a freedom fighter who had "fought against the hegemony of the United States". The implicit comparison was with Assange himself, whose disclosure of US secrets continues to enrage the Pentagon.

But it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that Assange isn't one of TV's naturals. His delivery was stilted. Assange has done numerous media interviews since WikiLeaks propelled him to global fame in 2010. And a simultaneous translator was on hand to turn his questions into Arabic. But the results were debatable. One Twitter user described his interview style as "engrossing". But others dubbed it "like a robot", "painful to watch", and punctuated with "shots of Assange nodding sagely while HN drones on".

Assange was at his best when he asked Nasrallah why Hezbollah supports the Arab spring across the Middle East, but not in Syria. His worst moment came when he prompted the cleric to recall how members of the Lebanese resistance had outwitted the Israelis by using homespun village phrases such as "cooking pot" and "father of the chicken". Julian began his question in the manner of a lost tourist who has accidentally stumbled on an English phrasebook: "Do … you … remember … this … joke?"

The most insidious aspect of Assange's show is not what is in it, but what isn't. Russia Today – now styled RT – is state-owned and Kremlin-controlled. It is remarkable for how little reporting it devotes to what is going on inside Russia today. There is no mention, for example, of top-level corruption, Vladimir Putin's alleged secret fortune – referenced in US embassy cables leaked by WikiLeaks – or the brutal behaviour of Russian security forces and their local proxies in the north Caucasus.

Instead, the channel offers a shiny updated version of Soviet propaganda. The west, and America in particular, is depicted as crime-ridden, failing, and in thrall to big business and evil elites. RT's favourite theme is western hypocrisy: "How dare you criticise us when you do the same?" The English-language channel portrays itself as "anti-mainstream". In reality it reflects Putin's own conspiratorial, touchy and xenophobic world-view while staying mute about Russia's own failings.

The mystery is why Assange should agree to become a pawn in the Kremlin's global information war. Perhaps he needs the money. Assange's anti-American agenda, of course, fits neatly with the Kremlin's own. Russia prides itself on having undesirable allies; expect Venezuela's Hugo Chávez or Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko on future shows. In Tuesday's interview Nasrallah expressed support for the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. By happy coincidence this is Moscow's position.

It's inconceivable, meanwhile, that RT would interview Doku Umarov, the Islamist leader whose followers are fighting a vicious war in southern Russia, and whom Moscow regards as a murderous terrorist. (When the Australian TV channel ABC interviewed one of Umarov's predecessors, Shamil Basayev, who was later assassinated, the Kremlin expelled the channel from Russia). Nor is Assange likely to interview leading critics of the Russian regime.

US cables released by WikiLeaks in December 2010 paint a dismal picture of Putin's Russia as a "virtual mafia state". Has Assange read them? It seems extraordinary that Assange – described by RT as the world's most famous whistleblower – should team up with an opaque regime where investigative journalists are shot dead (16 unsolved murders) and human rights activists kidnapped and executed, especially in Chechnya and other southern Muslim republics. Strange and obscene.

There is a long dishonourable tradition of western intellectuals who have been duped by Moscow. The list includes Bernard Shaw, the Webbs, HG Wells and André Gide. So Assange – whether for idealistic reasons, or simply out of necessity, given his legal bills and fight against extradition to Sweden – isn't the first. But The World Tomorrow confirms he is no fearless revolutionary. Instead he is a useful idiot.

Click to expand...

Alexander Litvinenko was a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service, FSB and KGB, who escaped prosecution in Russia and received political asylum in the United Kingdom. He wrote two books, Blowing up Russia: Terror from within and Lubyanka Criminal Group, where he accused the Russian secret services of staging Russian apartment bombings and other terrorism acts to bring Vladimir Putin to power.

On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalized. He died three weeks later, becoming the first confirmed victim of lethal polonium-210-induced acute radiation syndrome.[1] According to doctors, "Litvinenko's murder represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism".[2][3][4]

Click to expand...

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Who is producing “The World Tomorrow”?
The show is being produced by Quick Roll Productions, a company established by Julian Assange.
The main production partner is Dartmouth Films, a UK producer of independent films. Indispensable help and advice has been received from friends and supporters of WikiLeaks. If your network is interested in licensing the show, please visit the website of the distributor, Journeyman Pictures.

What has RT got to do with “The World Tomorrow”?
RT is the first broadcast licensee of the show, but has not been involved in the production process. All editorial decisions have been made by Julian Assange. RT's rights encompass the first release of 26-minute edits of each episode in English, Spanish and Arabic.

Click to expand...

DigitalSoldier said:

I wonder what would happen to Assange if he released Russian secrets ?

Something similar to this Alexander Litvinenko:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

Click to expand...

killadoob said:

Somehow i think the russian know how to keep secrets secret better than the US.

Click to expand...

DigitalSoldier said:

That and the fact that US citizens have more rights than Russian citizens.

Click to expand...

killadoob said:

Somehow i think the russian know how to keep secrets secret better than the US.

Click to expand...

A new news show hosted by Julian Assange debuted yesterday on RT, the global media outlet funded by the Russian government and carried by several of America’s largest cable providers. His first show was devoted to an interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (video below), who has not given a television interview since 2006. The combination of Assange and a Russian-owned TV network has triggered a predictable wave of snide, smug attacks from American media figures, attacks that found their purest expression in this New York Times review yesterday of Assange’s new program by Alessandra Stanley.

Much is revealed by these media attacks on Assange and RT — not about Assange or RT but about their media critics. We yet again find, for instance, the revealing paradox that nothing prompts media scorn more than bringing about unauthorized transparency for the U.S. government. As a result, it’s worth examining a few passages from Stanley’s analysis. It begins this way:

Click to expand...

Let’s examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (Kaplan/The Washington Post), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it’s an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from?

Click to expand...

copacetic said:

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

*edit*



...

Click to expand...