CNN‘s Erin Burnett
CNN host Erin Burnett had WikiLeaks‘ Julian Assange on her show late last week (11/28/12) to talk about his new book. But the conversation turned to the allegation of hypocrisy: How can a freedom of information champion like Assange square those principles with the press freedom record of Ecuador, the country that is allowing him to stay in its London embassy in order to avoid arrest?
BURNETT: But, you know, when you talk about this, you know governments clamping down on the right to speak, Ecuador is an unlikely champion of your call for free speech and I wanted to lay this out for you, because just this month, Human Rights Ecuador reports that the president of Ecuador, President Correa proposed—
ASSANGE: Look, look, look, seriously—
BURNETT: Let me finish for my viewers here, though, and then you can go ahead and rip it apart. He said freedom of expression should be a function of the state, where information—
ASSANGE: Look, look, I’m not here—I’m not here to talk about—all governments have their problems.
(CROSSTALK)
ASSANGE: I’m not here to talk about—I heard it.
(CROSSTALK)
ASSANGE: I’m not here to talk about these little things about Ecuador or whatever. Come on. Let’s be realistic.
BURNETT: It’s not a little thing. Suppressing journalists is not a little thing for someone who says that their job is to put out information that governments try to suppress.
ASSANGE: It is a big problem, the suppression of the freedom of speech all over the world, an extremely big problem. And so is the collapse in the rule of law.
Let’s set aside the notion that a journalist who published a story about how the US military killed journalists in Iraq, and whose outlet had its its funding stream essentially frozen because of US government pressure, needs to speak out about Ecuadoran press rights to prove he’s concerned about press freedom.
Yes, there are some legitimate criticisms of Ecuador’s press policies; the same is true for many countries. The Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders ranks Ecuador 104th in the world. Not a good score by any stretch, but that’s still ahead of Colombia and US ally Jordan, and only slightly behind Israel. How often do you hear US reporters asking interview subjects to condemn press policies in those countries?
So what has Ecuador actually done? Like many countries, Ecuador has libel laws that are, when measured by the U.S. First Amendment, rather restrictive. As Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic & Policy Research pointed out (Guardian, 7/21/12), the details of the most often cited case against President Rafael Correa deserve a closer look:
Last February, the nation’s highest court upheld a criminal libel conviction against the daily El Universo, with three directors and an opinion editor sentenced to three years in prison, and $40 million in damages. President Correa announced a pardon for the convictions 13 days later—so no one was punished. As noted above, I am against criminal libel laws and would agree with criticism advocating the repeal of such laws. But to say that this case represents a “crackdown” on freedom of expression is more than an exaggeration. These people were convicted of libel because they told very big lies in print, falsely accusing Correa of crimes against humanity. Under Ecuadorian law, he can—like any other citizen—sue them for libel, and the court can and did find them guilty.
He added that what is really happening is more about a political struggle between private media powers and popular governments pursuing policies those owners don’t care for:
Rather than being a heroic battle for freedom of expression against a government that is trying to “silence critics,” it is a struggle between two political actors. One political actor is the major media, whose unelected owners and their allies use their control of information to advance the interests of the wealth and power that used to rule the country; on the other side is a democratic government that is seeking to carry out its reform program, for which it was elected.
Sami Al-Hajj, Al-Jazeera journalist who spent six years in Guantanamo for committing journalism
But it’s not just Erin Burnett who takes the level of press freedom in countries with left-leaning governments seriously. This weekend, the New York Times (11/30/12) had a long piece about the political-press dispute in Argentina, pausing to note:
In other parts of Latin America, leaders have clashed vehemently with the news media. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela incurred protests by forcing a critical broadcaster, RCTV, off public airwaves, while President Rafael Correa of Ecuador regularly disparages journalists, some of whom have faced debilitating libel lawsuits.
It is true that Chávez does not have an amicable relationship with the private media barons in his country. These are, after all, the people who agitated—and some instances directly assisted—in the 2002 coup temporarily overthrowing his government. Ask yourself what would happen in this country to a national broadcaster who did the same thing.
It is understandable, given the threats to free expression around the world, that some stories will get more attention than others. In that regard, the patterns are what matter; which cases get more attention from media and political elites here?
As Glenn Greenwald observed (Guardian, 8/21/12), there seems to be an expectation in the Assange case that a dissident must take refuge with a government with a sterling human rights record. This message is conveyed by people who live in a country that has routinely violated human rights around the globe, and it comes from reporters who rarely express any concerns for journalists detained, harassed and killed by their own government.
So, yes: Isn’t it time Julian Assange spoke out on freedom of expression?
You really do a good job of glossing over press suppression in Ecuador. The president uses those libel lawsuits as intimidation, He also has had several radio stations shut down.
http://cpj.org/blog/2012/08/as-it-backs-assange-ecuador-represses-free-express.php
Also at some point Chavez will have to forgive those that tried to overthrow him, after all he was forgiven for trying to overthrow a previous Venezuelan government.
I imagine CNN had more of an interrogation than an interview of Assange in mind, don’t you?
But I do think that his initial response – “these little things about Ecuador” – was hypocritical, and gave Burnett’s grilling unwarranted legitimacy.
It mirrors how gummint officials and corporate types downplay issues they’re confronted with, and as such is not to be emulated by anyone claiming a fealty to the facts.
That said, comparing Assange’s transgression to the corpress’ utter disregard for honesty is akin to equating shoplifting with armed robbery
Or the routine operation of the mortgage division of a major bank.
“But I do think that his initial response – “these little things about Ecuador” – was hypocritical”
I wish people didn’t lob the word “hypocritical” around willy nilly. If you mean inconsistent, say inconsistent.
Funny how the two parties in the US are so extremely hypocritical and corrupt, and still 55% still participate in the terrible flawed show elections they put on in the hope, however baseless, that some fragment of justice will come of them.
WikiLeaks Hero Represses Journalists in Own Country
http://mije.org/richardprince/univision-journalists-press-diverse-debates#assange
Freedom is just a word . all the news you showing about this case are manufactured , its like keeping people minds under news control to win time . You showing his book as a future without critics , following by his health downing , then we saw affection and joke in this case . i mean it looks like pinky waves . c’est un film de pornographie .
Seriously. When I was watching it, I really wanted Assange to ask Burnett: “So which country do you suggest I approach for asylum? Whose record do you believe is acceptable?” That question ought to have stopped that issue dead in it’s tracks. I mean, all countries have violations except maybe like, Belgium or something, right?
@Eli,
“The president uses those libel lawsuits as intimidation, He also has had several radio stations shut down.”
Because CPJ says it, it’s not necessarily true. Without agreeing that he should’ve done it, Correa’s lawsuit against El Universo (the only significant such lawsuit) occurred because he was accused of “crimes against humanity.” In Ecuador’s penal code, this type of slander — falsely accusing someone of a crime — is punishable with prison.
Now, radio stations haven’t been shut down for the reasons you might think. In some cases, they have failed to pay their license fees, or are not complying with regulations. These are generally small radio stations that, frankly, no one has heard of. Yes, in a few cases there are unproven accusations that the reasons are political, but no major opposition station has been shut down.
It’s much better when you have first-hand information, rather than the self-serving stuff that local political orgs feed international NGOs.
Glenn Greenwald tweeted this blog post of yours in which you wrote
“The Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders ranks Ecuador
104th in the world. Not a good score by any stretch, but that’s still
ahead of Colombia and U.S. ally Jordan, and only slightly behind
Israel. How often do you hear U.S. reporters asking interview subjects
to condemn press policies in those countries?”
You failed to inform your readers that RSF is a fraud and that its
rankings for countries should be viewed as deeply suspect.
RSF applauded the 2004 coup in Haiti as a victory for press freedom.
Between 2004 to 2006, a UN installed dictatorship and its paramilitary
allies perpetrated at least 4000 political killings according to a
study published in the Lancet Medical Journal. Haiti’s Press baron’s
openly agitated for a coup against Haiti’s democratically elected
government for years before it finally took place. RSF helped those
press barons out by making ridiculous allegations that the Aristide
government was cracking down on dissent. But when a very real and
bloody crackdown took place in Haiti, RSF cheerfully reported that
‘Changes of ruler are sometimes good for press freedom, as in the case
of Haiti, which has risen from 125th to 87th place in two years after
the flight into exile of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in early
2004. Several murders of journalists remain unpunished but violence
against the media has abated.’”
http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=35
Canada has consistently ranked very high on RSF’s Press freedom Index.
It’s presently ranked number 10 out of roughly 200 countries that RSF
monitors. I’ve gone over in detail how effectively Canada’s corporate
media has buried Canada’s criminal role in Haiti . That fact alone
makes a joke of Canada’s high ranking:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1783/68/
http://canuckmediamonitor.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=350&st=0#entry499
If press barons in Canada have very little to fear from the government,
it is primarily because the reverse of that is also true. The lack of
real press freedom in countries like Canada leaves most people unaware
of how private media and government elites work together to stifle
public debate. It also leaves the public unaware of how much more
combative the private media is within many countries that RSF has,
outlandishly, labeled as being bottom feeders when it comes to press
freedom.
In Ecuador, Correa was briefly taken hostage inside a police hospital
by rebellious police in 2010. Correa later won a libel suit against El
Universo, one of Ecuador’s largest newspapers, for running an op-ed
that called him a “dictator” who was guilty of “crimes against
humanity” for having ordered an assault on “innocent civilians” to
break him out of the hospital. Would such an op-ed in a very high
profile outlet appear in Canada under similar circumstances? Judging by
the Canadian corporate media’s hostility to non-violent student
protectors in Quebec,
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/quebec-student-strike_b_1473334.html
I think we can safely assume that high profile corporate pundits would
not libel a Prime Minster who had been taken hostage. It is also worth
noting that very recent op-eds in Ecuador show that El Universo has
hardly gone soft on Correa.
Below are very recent op-eds found in in El Universo after a quick and
very far from exhaustive search. I just translate the title and give
the gist of the op-ed. Readers can translate for themselves on Google
Translate if they want to verify what I say about the op-ed:
Assange y el Derecho Internacional (Assange and international Law —
blasts Correa’s record on Press freedom citing Human RightS Watch and
several other NGOs – says giving Assange asylum is an effort to cover
up that poor record.)
http://www.eluniverso.com/2012/08/24/1/1363/assange-derecho-internacional.html
Assange no es nadie (Assange is Nobody – moans about the irrelevance of
Assange and Wikileaks and about how unhealthy it is that a fugitive
gets unwarranted attention rather than deserving people whom author
suggests are “scientists, thinks and spiritual leaders”.)
http://www.eluniverso.com/2012/08/24/1/1363/assange-nadie.html
El imposible aprendizaje (The Impossible Apprenticeship – theatrical
op-ed celebrating El Universo’s supposedly courageous defiance of
Correa. )
http://www.eluniverso.com/2012/08/26/1/1363/imposible-aprendizaje.html
BTW most of this is lifted from a blog post I wrote a while ago. See
link below.
Joe
http://www.zcommunications.org/lack-of-press-freedom-shields-reporters-without-borders-from-exposure-by-joe-emersberger
What does Sami Al-Haji have to do with with Julian Assange? He may be legitimate example of press repression by the U.S. but there is nothing here to explain anything about his relevance to this case or why posting jis photo here does anything but distract the reader who is trying to understand a rather unfocused article.
I think a discussion of Ecuador’s suppression of press freedoms through libel laws is a legitimate topic but we should have some context:
1. What influence is the US government using to address this situation?
2. What is the responsibility of US (and Australians) in this situation?
3. Are there more pressing press freedom issues that do unaddressed that need to be discussed first?
4. How does this have anything to do with Assange? He is receiving asylum from Ecuador. The US and the UK and Sweden, with better press records, are refusing to promise that he will not be deported to the US for prosecution under sealed (and secret) indictments. I think Assange’s first choice would have been to receive assurances frrom the US that it was not going to grab him for committing “crimes” over which it does not have jurisdiction. I think his preference would be to return to Sweden to answert legitimate questions as part of their judicial process. Assuming he remained free after that, I assume he would like to continue publishing secret materials provided by whistleblowers. He would probably like to be in a position from which to criticize Ecuador, but asylum recipient living in an Ecuadoran embassy is not much of one, is it?
I sent this message to CNN:
“Ms. Burnett wasted an opportunity to discuss freedom of the press when she hijacked her own interview with Julian Assange to disparage the nation that granted him asylum. If Ms. Burnett knows of a nation with impeccable protections of such freedoms, I encourage her to name them; and if she can name one that offered to help protect Assange’s freedoms, I encourage her to let Mr. Assange know a.s.a.p.! In the meantime, Ms. Burnett appears to be simply badgering a journalist who has exposed important, disturbing facts about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does Ms. Burnett’s selection and emphasis here illustrate quality professional journalism? NO WAY.”
In the US, falsely and knowingly accusing someone of committing a specific criminal act is libel per se. An aggrieved party may sue for compensatory and punitive damages. No jail time in the US, as Iunderstand it, but we here treat such an accusation quite seriously, if one makes it and knows it to be false. This mirrors our common law as well, so it is a practice rooted in our history and traditions.
Julian Assange should refrain from granting interviews to the MSM. Their job is to discredit him and WikiLeaks as well as to discourage and frighten future whistle-blowers. Assange may be brilliant in technology but he seriously sucks at the art of debate. He damages his own cause as well as the cause of transparency and exposure of the ruling elite every time he steps on a sound stage (the exception being Democracy Now of course).
No real surprise of Erin Burnett’s pathetic ramblings. She’d never treat George W Bush or Tony Blair to such a rude treatment. Her job, along with CNN in general, is to tow the line of elite foreign policy goals. If she did actually question ‘our leaders’ she would be out of a job in a second. I wonder if she would mention the UK’s draconian libel laws in an interview with a top British politician and talk about them in the same way as she did Ecuadors? Reporters Without Borders are not the freedom loving grouping they purport themselves to be. check out their funding streams and some of the relationship to US government persons.
It’s one thing to shine a spotlight on the criminal actions of governments, as Assange has done; a courageous act that should be commended and protected.
It’s an entirely different thing to intentionally mislead viewers in an attempt to vilify government leaders for the sole purpose of advancing corporate and wealthy interests, as our corporate-owned mainstream media does daily. When news outlets lie, they must be held accountable. It’s a real shame our media cannot be sued for libel, as that would certainly put outlets like Fox out of business.
Ah mr Assange.Where have you been hiding? :)Almost gone, and almost forgotten.Actually he has been hiding in a 15×15 ft room near harrods dept store in the embassy.If he steps one foot outside he will be hauled off by the Brits and shipped to Sweden to face Sex charges.Then probably here to face espionage charges.Come out ,come out- you little cockroach.Time to pay the piper.Sooner or later you have to come out.You will get your day in court.Do you not trust the courts to fairly judge you.Or………….do you fear they WILL judge you fairly?
Eli provided a link to an article entitled: As it backs Assange, Ecuador stifles expression at home. I read it. I also read many of the comments posted afterward. Most the comments took issue with the article calling it propaganda. When “the press” is a mouthpiece for elitist interests – as it is here and Ecuador – there are bound to be clashes between it and populist movements.
In response to “michael e”:
Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptian men, were sexually assaulted and tortured by US and Egyptian agents on Swedish soil in the presence of Swedish officials. To this day, the Swedish government has refused to prosecute any of the perpetrators – including its own officials who were accomplices. Not only did Swedish officials witness the assault on these men but Swedish police kidnapped the victims and turned them over to agents who assaulted them.
In other words, gross criminality has gone unpunished in Sweden when US foreign policy priorities are involved – as in Assange’s case. To any one with their eyes open that is ample grounds to be extremely distrustful of Sweden’s capacity to treat Assange fairly.
Joe Im with you.If those agents have enough evidence against them to extradite them- then get to it.They can fly in the same plane as mr accused rapist and spy.Cut no deals
Hey Michael e:
The point you are missing – again – is that the Swedish government has refused to prosecute anyone involved in the crimes against Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery. The perps can fly wherever they want. That’s irrelevant. Sweden has REFUSED TO PROSECUTE anyone, including its own officials who do not need to be extradited, even though the courts forced them to compensate the victims which shows how strong the evidence is. The case reveals has corrupt Sweden’s legal system is when US interests are involved.
At the same time Sweden pursues Assange for questioning over a broken condemn and (in the other cases) the woman was asleep or half asleep, it shields its own and foreign officials from crimes which are vastly more serious and for which the evidence is incomparably stronger. Again, that is a very good reason to doubt that Sweden is capable of dealing fairly and honestly with Assange’s case.
It is part of Assange’s personality that makes him susceptible to ambushes such as this. I’ve seen the same thing done to Chris Hedges, and he is a little more savvy. Wouldn’t it be nice if the US, Canada, or Britain would offer him asylum, and he could actually trust them not to throw him in solitary for life after he accepted?
Well Joe to say Sweden is a totally corrupt system because of a number of cases you can cite is like saying the American system is brain dead because of O.J.The swedish system may not be to your liking.But realize that anytime a criminal goes to trial, part of the legal ploy is to fault the legal system.A certain cop killer here in the US has used that to great fame(sic)in Europe and ga ga Hollywood land.This is just that ploy.
Michael e
I didn’t say Sweden’s legal system was “totally corrupt”. I stated the obvious fact that the kidnapping, torture and sexual assault of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery – heinous crimes for which nobody has been proseucted – “reveals has corrupt Sweden’s legal system is when US interests are involved”. It shows that there is very good reason to doubt Sweden’s capacity to treat ASSANGE fairly. Realy hard to miss that point unles you want to.
Freesprirt,
I agree with all this
“First of all, Assange has not been charged. He is only a person of interest wanted for questioning. Sweden’s malevolence is demonstrated by insisting on extradition (highly unusual for just questioning). They become more suspect of ulterior motives (i.e. cooperation with the US in its revenge/punishment/mafia type lesson to would be whistleblowers) by their refusal to question Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.”
In fact, a former Swedish prosecutor has testified saying how unreasonable and disproportionate Sweden’s prosecutors have behaved towards Assange. Also extremely suspicious is Sweden’s refusal to assure Assange that it will not extradite him to the USA to face punishment for his work with Wikileaks. That would be a violation of both Swedish and international law. Hence Sweden is refusing to say tha that will abide by the law. Moreover the Swedish executive branch – not its courts – would have the final say over Assange’s extradiction from Sweden.
All that said, the Agiza / al-Zery case dramaticlly reveals how brazenly the Swedish state continues to violate its own and international laws at the behest of the USA. It therefore reveals how moderate Assange’s (and Ecuador’s) demands are that Sweden merely provide assurances before Assange return to Sweden. Both Ecuador and Assange would be quite justified in demanding that Sweden prosecute the people who brutally assulted the Egytian men as the condition for Assange returning to Sweden.
So the answer is what?Allow “people of interest” to hide from that interest forever?Never having to answer the charges- because the legal system is showing a little too much interest?Or because that system is not to your liking?Can’t think of a criminal alive that would not want that in their jurisprudence bag of tricks.So where would you want the lovely Mr Assange to be charged ,and if found wanting….prosecuted?What temp should we keep his bathwater at till he gets there?
Joe the last thing you wrote is total legal nonsense.
Go into google and read JUSTICE FOR SWEDEN by marten Shultz .
Where do they find you people?
Michael e
I read the Shultz article you suggested. I wonder if you actually did.
You say Assange should face “charges” but even Shultz explicitly states that ASSANGE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED.
Shultz wrote
“The UK Supreme Court’s decision means only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. It does not mean that he will be tried, or even charged. It is entirely possible that he will be transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. ”
There is no legal, much less moral, reason why Swedish authorities are forced to QUESTION Assange in Sweden. It could easily be arranged in the UK. They have done it for other suspects. Shultz doesn’t address this fact, or the damning implications of the Agiza / al-Zery case, or that Sweden won’t provide any statement on whether they would ever extradite Assange to the USA for his work with Wikileaks.
You should try to hunt down more convincing apologists for Sweden’s behavior in this case.
Joe you keep arguing semantics.Whether he is interrogated and charged- or interrogated and released, he is now as they like to say a person of interest.And as such, at some point he will have to answer the “charges” that have been made against him.Hiding in a little windowless room for the rest of his life from his accusers is not going to prove his innocence.Or would you just have everyone that has claims against him curl up and go away?Not gonna happen.
Come out come out wherever you are.We can see your little nose sniffin at the door.Come on Julian we have a car just waiting for you ,and a nice pair of silver bracelets.If he is found not guilty so be it joe.But sooner or later he is going to have to step up to the plate.
Erin throws in Ecuadorian suppression of the press as a way of getting Assange off the subject. His focus has been more powerful countries like the US.. He doesn’t have to focus on every country. It’s like saying, “I know I stole that purse, but look over there at my friend stealing that bag.” The US’s impact on the world is huge. When we sneeze, they catch a cold. I’m sure once Ecuador becomes a big fish, he’ll fry it.