The Information Gatekeepers and Assange

Western Mainstream Media continues to largely ignore the situation with Julian Assange. He has now spent more than a decade effectively (and actually) imprisoned without ever facing any kind of trial or due process – the bogus charges being used as a pretense to seize him being found without merit and dropped. But by then he was caught in a series of legal traps and in order to avoid the snares laid for him by the CIA – he became a fugitive and asylum seeker.

The media continues to spread disinformation about him, slandering his character and muddying the waters regarding the role of Wikileaks as a publisher. No evidence has been produced that he helped any whistleblower to hack a system but as the New York Times and others did during the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, he published the materials made available to him – materials which exposed the criminality and deceit of the US government not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but around the world.

Despite the claims, no has brought forth any evidence that these leaks led to anyone getting killed and those US figures who were revealed as murderers – have not been held accountable either.

Outlets such as the Bezos-owned Washington Post and The Guardian have advocated the 'guarding' of secrets as a task required of the media. The Guardian of course published a great deal of the Snowden leaks back in 2013, but not long after underwent a shift in culture and journalistic philosophy – a story of corruption that has not been properly told or explored.

Secrets are to be guarded in time of war – or so the argument goes. But just what does that mean in a context of permanent war which was clearly the objective post-9/11? And how can democracy function and government officials be held to account when the state is waging wars that most of the public knows nothing about? This is true in the UK but patently on a much greater level when it comes to the United States.

One is left laughing at the absurdity of the labeling system now dominating social media. Outlets such as Al Jazeera and RT are labeled as state-funded or controlled entities and in many cases dismissed as propaganda. For its part, even Al Jazeera has moved into a much more 'comfortable' position vis-à-vis Western governments and media and is no longer reckoned as necessarily adversarial. Regardless, to consider mainstream Anglo-American news (or infotainment) outlets as 'free' is simply dishonest if not ridiculous.

As commercial entities, they understand that access is key to ratings – which translate into profits. Adversarial media outlets will not get interviews with presidents and prime ministers or top officials in government. As such these mainstream outlets are not really independent in the least but exhibit strong tendencies toward collaboration and the evidence points to a kind of cross-fertilisation with the mandarin or ruling class – with figures literally moving back and forth from government to media. As such, literal censorship comes into play as these outlets will suppress stories at the request of the state – and openly admit to doing so. In other cases they engage in self-censorship as editors and journalists demonstrate a strong willingness to suppress stories and limit investigation that might not be appreciated by government allies or corporate masters. Regardless of their claims or official designations, they are effectively state entities and need to be reckoned as such – whether or not YouTube slaps labels on their video clips.

The campaign to cast aspersions on media organisations that might not toe the official state line is not only anti-journalistic, but points to what much be described as a sinister deception campaign.