WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO After WikiLeaks Banned from UNESCO Conference on WikiLeaks

[Hissyspit]

http://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-denounces-UNESCO-after.html

WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO after WikiLeaks banned from UNESCO conference on WikiLeaks

WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wed Feb 15 17:00:00 2012 GMT

"#OccupyUNESCO"

WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO for banning WikiLeaks from conference about WikiLeaks (February 16-17, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris).

WikiLeaks denounced UNESCO for banning WikiLeaks from tomorrow’s international conference about WikiLeaks. The large two-day conference, which has 37 speakers listed, is to be held UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. US organizers have stacked the conference with WikiLeaks opponents and blocked all speakers from WikiLeaks, stating that the decision to censor WikiLeaks representation was an exercise in ’freedom of expression... our right to give voice to speakers of our choice’.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denounced the conference: ’UNESCO has made itself an international human rights joke. To use "freedom of expression" to censor WikiLeaks from a conference about WikiLeaks is an Orwellian absurdity beyond words. This is an intolerable abuse of UNESCO’s Constitution. It’s time to occupy UNESCO.’

WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson expressed consternation in a letter to UNESCO about the exclusion: ’UNESCO has a duty to assure that fairness and balance is secured in important discussions carried out under the banner of the organization. It is obvious that this will hardly be the case, given the selection of speakers. This is both a disgrace to UNESCO and potentially harmful to WikiLeaks.’

Julian Assange calls for an immediate investigation "UNESCO must conduct a full, frank and open investigation as to how its constitution, which tasks it to promote freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of communication, has become a blunt instrument of censorship. UNESCO must demonstrate that cold-war style power-plays, by the United States, or indeed any other country, are no longer acceptable."

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[MNBrewer]

2. Du rec, rec. Nt.

[msanthrope]

3. I doubt they gave "News of the World' a platform.. What a stupid complaint by Wikileaks. nt

[2banon]

33. huh?

If you/your reputation was being injured by any entity holding judgment against you in a mock kangaroo court (under guise of a "conference&quot would'nt YOU insist on being allowed to defend yourself? Would you think it was a stupid thing to complain about?

I don't understand the logic behind Assange attackers here. If this were freeperville, I'd get it, but knee jerk reactions against him and wikileaks by any other tribe of people other than freepers, just doesn't make sense to me.

[Civilization2]

49. yes the propaganda works,.

Accuse your detractors of rape and they will loose some support. Don't even have to prove anything, just the accusation will do. People are simple and reactionary creatures, and many are too simple to see character assassination for what it is.

[msanthrope]

50. Who is holding a 'kangaroo court'

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

at this conference? The list of speakers and participants is available online. Tell us who is conducting this kangaroo court?

Mr. Assange's own attorney is scheduled to speak. Is he part of the kangaroo court?

[2banon]

52. It was a metaphore

It's rather predictable, but hey.. happy to be wrong on this. we'll see how this actually plays out.

[DUIC]

4. awwwww, too bad so sad

A conference dedicated to professional journalism after the age of Wikileaks and News of the world would have -- by definition - professional journalists. As wikileaks are self-described nihilists they have no journalistic credentials. Maybe if UNESCO ran a panel on men that abuse women they can invite Assange as a subject matter expert.

[saras]

6. WTF is "professional" journalism EXCEPT corporate-censored journalism? Does it mean ANYTHING else?

[msanthrope]

8. So, then, Assange and Rupert Murdoch should have been invited? nt

[boppers]

35. Yes. It means education. Credentials. Training.

It means knowing what journalism is, for example. Hint: blogging is not journalism. Press release "stories" (such as in the OP) is not journalism (there's a bunch of intentional omission in the PR). Issuing opinions is not journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards

[Scootaloo]

37. Then by said standards, all American media organizations should be likewise barred

"We repeat whatever comes down the AP wire verbatim, at least when we don't just make it up." isn't journalism either

[boppers]

38. Most should, yes. Not all.

A few gave up on corporate media and now run independent, some have even formed the equivalent of AP "wires", only with 20 times the quality of coverage.

Example:
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/

(I knew this guy in High School, some of the best Tucson and Arizona coverage to be found, anywhere.... I grew up there.)

[msanthrope]

9. The reason Mr. Assange is so peeved, I suspect, is that the 'News of the World' doesn't make

for a very nice journalistic bedfellow.

[Hissyspit]

23. Yeah. Good point.

So why are they being equated?

[msanthrope]

29. Arguably, both organizations have changed the face of journalism.. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. They are both stories about the media gets hold of non-public information

by leaks of confidential information; or by intruding into private communication.

[Hissyspit]

39. It was a rhetorical question.

Leaks of confidential information OR intruding into private communication illegally. Quite the NON-equivalent. News of the World = WikiLeaks... NOT.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Maybe your problem is that you think they are being equated

They are being talked about together; but that doesn't mean they are identical.

[Hissyspit]

58. They are being equated.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. As I said, that's your problem; you've misunderstood (nt)

[Hissyspit]

62. People have been doing it in this thread.

It's not an accident.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/16/media-briefs-news-cuts-wikileaks-snub-amasian-linsanity/

UNESCO’s WikiLeaks conference snubs WikiLeaks. In the 1980s, the US withdrew from UNESCO, accusing it of being an anti-American, anti-Israel body. Twenty-five years later it’s being accused of being a US stooge, with news that the body is hosting a conference on journalism “after WikiLeaks and News of the World”, with neither of the named bodies being invited to participate.

UNESCO appears to have “subcontracted” the conference to a group called the “World Press Freedom Committee”, a classic Cold War-style ginger outfit (“based in Reston, Virginia”?—?two miles, from Langley, down Dulles Road), now part of “Freedom House”, an NGO group long used to advance US interests at arm’s length. WikiLeaks has denounced the conference, pointing out that no one from WikiLeaks, or News International for that matter, has been invited to speak (the only “pro-WikiLeaks” speaker being Geoffrey Robertson, who only became associated in a legal capacity once Julian Assange suffered personal legal problems).

The one WikiLeaks insider invited (but not attending) is Daniel Domscheit-Berg who left WikiLeaks to form “Openleaks”, a whistleblowing website that, 14 months after launching, is yet to publish, and who destroyed a large amount of WikiLeaks submissions after leaving the group.

WikiLeaks protested to UNESCO about its exclusion from the conference; WPFC rep Ronald Koven replied in Catch 22 style that: “I can only share in your attachment to freedom of expression. It must include our right to give voice to speakers of our choice.” He went on to say that: “The main focus of this conference is not about WikiLeaks as such …”. The titles of five of the six sessions contain the words “… after WikiLeaks”. Not that the World Press Freedom Committee is exactly a model of transparency itself. Try to find out via the committee website who the staff are, or who is even on the committee, and this is the result.

MORE

[Hissyspit]

10. Patent nonsense on your part.

[DUIC]

13. I clicked on your response, only to find it void of content

[Hissyspit]

24. I know the feeling. eom

nt

[RobertBlue]

21. +1 n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. my goodness, we have a big Judith Miller fan in the house.

A big round of applause. And something about aspens.

[DUIC]

14. I am a big fan of cause and effect

Effect tends to follow cause. Yet, your response is lacking that causal relationship. How could my post result in a reference to Judith Miller? You may have equally posted "It rains in Spain, but mostly in the plains" and it would have had greater relevance.

[progressoid]

44. Google my friend...

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/index3.html

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/2005_LEAKTIMELINE_MILLER_GRAPHIC.html?_r=1

http://www.timporter.com/firstdraft/archives/000507.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19603428/ns/politics/t/ironic-twist-libby-case/#.TzzykLRnDoE

Plus about 900,000 more hits.

If you are a fan of cause and effect, then Judith Miller is an excellent example of the cause and effect of "professional" journalism.

[DUIC]

45. So you are implying that *all* journalists can lack professional ethics

That is a huge leap in logic.

[progressoid]

47. No, you asked about the reference to Judith Miller.

So, I gave you some links to read. Simple as that.

[DUIC]

48. So who exactly is the big Judith Miller fan then?

I certainly am not. Were you attempting to suggest that I was?

[2banon]

34. that is hilarious. Professional Propagandists more like it.

that's pretty interesting that you've taken the sexual abuse charges to be factual without evidence presented.

[DUIC]

46. Assange is a nihilistic narcissist

Evidence has not been presented in a court of law. He will have his day in court once his legal machinations to avoid extradiction and other roadblocks are dealt with. Furthermore, enough information has been diseminated to provide the details about Assange's sexual assaults. OJ did it, Assange probably did it too.

[2banon]

51. oh, really? You have first hand knowledge do you?

so, assured of the facts, there can be no question as to the verasity of the allegations, eh?

[DUIC]

54. Predators like Assange have certain behaviors and characteristics

I say the odds are significantly better than half that a self-important, self-aggrandizing tool like Assange is guilty. Want to put some money on it?

[2banon]

57. I've had my share of life experiences with predators of various shades of slime and creep..

chances are significantly equal in either direction and no degree of probablity equates to evidence. not even close.

on the matter of Assange being a "tool".. who or what entity is he being a tool for?

[2banon]

53. I guess I missed the "self-described nihilist" report..

seems rather an odd thing to describe oneself in this context. at least it seems illogical to me.

[EFerrari]

5. Wrong. The biggest union of professional journalists in Australia supports Assange.

And UNESCO is tasked with promoting independent media and free expression.

This is more bullying by our government and it shows what a farce the UN has become.

[msanthrope]

7. His lawyer is one of the speakers. Tell us how that is 'bullying' by our government????

Are you seriously suggesting that Assange and Rupert Murdoch should have been invited?

[msanthrope]

15. Are you seriously suggesting that Assange and Rupert Murdoch should have been invited?

And do you think that no one else will speak approvingly of Wikileaks?

Mr. Robertson is quite an able speaker. Given the grand jury in VA, I posit that having one's lawyer speak to one's actions might be more prudent that having another journo or a spokesperson do so.

In the future, why not try making your point without personal insult? It would be more effective.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. WTF does Murdoch have to do with a conference on Wikileaks?

I have an idea,

Lets have a "conference" about your worth as a human being.
We'll invite everyone on your enemies list. Plus anyone you own money to. All the partners you've broken up with.

We'll exclude any and all of your family and friends and anyone else than knows you and can speak to your character.
Well ok, we'll give you one lawyer, if we have to, amid a sea of opposing lawyers, politicians, and corporate media shills who feel you embarrassed them and showed them up.

Even if one is afraid of Wikileaks and Assange and prefers their "news" vetted and codified through the official corporate media, as some on here are seem to prefer, how can ANYONE argue that this supposedly neutral conference is nothing more than an pre-ordained witch-hunt.

[msanthrope]

18. The conference is entitled "The Media World after WikiLeaks and News of the World."

I generally find that Wikileaks press releases are often missing basic facts that most professional journalists would include by rote. Thus, if you are arguing that Julian Assange should have been invited, then I suggest that fairness dictates a seat at the table for Mr. Murdoch.

Google helps.

The speaker list, and the participant list are available online. Kindly point to the 'official corporate media' that you think is organizing a 'witch hunt' of Mr. Assange?

I suspect that phone tapping will be a hot topic, thus rendering Mr. Assange mostly irrelevant.

Are you seriously suggesting that the World Press Freedom Committee is out to get Assange???


http://www.wpfc.org/

[LiberalLovinLug]

22. Ok, you have a point about the name of the conference.

From reading the OP and the Wikileaks page link, I did not find out about the actual name of the conference. I presumed it was all about Wikileaks influence on the "news of the world" (small letters).

Two such despairingly different entities and influences. One is worth multi-billions and the other is blocked from even small donations using credit card companies or PayPal. that's just one of many differences. Its odd that they include them both in the same topic.

From their website, no I don't think the WPRC is out to get Assange, but I don't agree with the format. Its one thing to ban Murdoch (not that he would show up), because he already has a world wide audience through his media empire to spread his point of view, whereas Wikileaks is demonized by the only media that is allowed on the airwaves, and rarely, if ever, gets a forum to defend itself. So forgive me if I have a built in knee jerk reaction to defend Wikileaks based on the treatment they typically get.

Another thing on the WPRC site link you posted reveals that the conference is co-sponsored, among other groups, by the World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), the World Editors Forum and the International Press Institute.

Gee, I wonder if they have any biases???? I'll bet you since Murdoch owns a large percent of the world's press companies, that those groups have more than one in there that has a mandate to defend The News of the World.

[msanthrope]

26. As I've noted previously, wikileaks press releases are high on hysteria, short on news. Perfectly

matched to Murdoch. IMHO.

[Hissyspit]

25. @wikileaks: Give it up @unescoNOW. G. Robertson QC is a sometimes advisor to Mr. Assange. Not a WL r

@wikileaks: Give it up @unescoNOW. G. Robertson QC is a sometimes advisor to Mr. Assange. Not a WL rep & pushed off to 2pm.

[msanthrope]

27. Um, Mr. Robertson is responsible for Assange's current, and sole appeal point.

I am not surprised that Mr. Asssange has had a falling out with yet another set of lawyers, but Mr. Robertson is the only reason Assange remains in the UK....

Julian Assange’s next court appearance, on Wednesday, has nothing to do with sex or U.S. diplomatic cables or even with WikiLeaks. But it may make an important contribution to European law. The United Kingdom Supreme Court will be considering the point I raised on his behalf when a Swedish prosecutor claimed to be a “judicial authority” empowered to issue a warrant to have him extradited from Britain to prison in Stockholm. My written argument began quite bluntly: “The notion that a prosecutor is a ‘judicial authority’ is a contradiction in terms.”

The principle is simple, at least in Anglo-American law. Judges must, as their defining quality, be independent of government. Police and prosecutors employed and promoted by the state obviously cannot be perceived as impartial if they are permitted to decide issues on the liberty of individuals. They are expected to be zealous in working up evidence against a suspect, so they are the last people who can be trusted to weigh up impartially the evidence they themselves have drummed up. That is a matter for a court.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/31/geoffrey-robertson-assange-s-appeal-rests-on-judicial-authority.html

Poor Julian.

[Hissyspit]

40. Wow.

How besides the point is that?

[supernova]

17. Lemme guess..

the whole conference is about how to stop Wikileaks. That's the only way this makes any sense.

[msanthrope]

19. Unfortunately, the OP failed to include any actual information regarding the conference---

"The Media World after WikiLeaks and News of the World”
organized by the Word Press Freedom Committee, with UNESCO's help.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/events/calendar-of-events/events-websites/the-media-world-after-wikileaks-and-news-of-the-world/

I was not aware that the World Press Freedom Committee was out to get Mr. Assange.




http://www.wpfc.org/

[LanternWaste]

20. Exactly. It's hardly relevant to include the catalyst of the topic at hand...

Exactly. It's hardly relevant to include the catalyst of the topic at hand...

[msanthrope]

28. Assange does become increasingly irrelevant as time passes. nt

[austinhook]

32. 2 plus 2 = 4

2 plus 2 = 4 becomes irrelevant once you get old enough and dementia sinks in.

[2banon]

55. More importantly, the information that Assange revealed has been successfully

covered up/ignored/buried by the Mainstream Corporate "Journalists" who have done the bidding of the State and the Corporations (who own the State) and their shills who divert attention away from that information to attacks on the messenger.

That objective has been successfully achieved, including right here on this board.

It's really quite shameful.

[boppers]

36. The only person who believes they are "the" catalyst is Assange.

He also thinks he's the topic.

He's not.

Journalism with questionable/illegal sourcing is the topic.

Oh, and Assange can't leave England anyways. He's under house arrest.

[Hissyspit]

41. Jeez...

[boppers]

42. He doesn't like most of the media involved because they have dared to run negative stories.

Along the line, his ego grew faster than his intellect.

It's a sad problem that happens to the best of people.... they start sleeping with their groupies, living without any anchors, demanding submission from everybody they come in contact with... and then the paranoia sets in, an after-effect of exploiting one's own fame and fortune. If you cannot deliver results fast enough to justify your fame and fortune, the lies start piling up...

[Hissyspit]

60. Yes, nobody was out to get WikiLeaks

Using slime techniques. That's all in his head.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/16/media-briefs-news-cuts-wikileaks-snub-amasian-linsanity

UNESCO’s WikiLeaks conference snubs WikiLeaks. In the 1980s, the US withdrew from UNESCO, accusing it of being an anti-American, anti-Israel body. Twenty-five years later it’s being accused of being a US stooge, with news that the body is hosting a conference on journalism “after WikiLeaks and News of the World”, with neither of the named bodies being invited to participate.

UNESCO appears to have “subcontracted” the conference to a group called the “World Press Freedom Committee”, a classic Cold War-style ginger outfit (“based in Reston, Virginia”?—?two miles, from Langley, down Dulles Road), now part of “Freedom House”, an NGO group long used to advance US interests at arm’s length. WikiLeaks has denounced the conference, pointing out that no one from WikiLeaks, or News International for that matter, has been invited to speak (the only “pro-WikiLeaks” speaker being Geoffrey Robertson, who only became associated in a legal capacity once Julian Assange suffered personal legal problems).

The one WikiLeaks insider invited (but not attending) is Daniel Domscheit-Berg who left WikiLeaks to form “Openleaks”, a whistleblowing website that, 14 months after launching, is yet to publish, and who destroyed a large amount of WikiLeaks submissions after leaving the group.

WikiLeaks protested to UNESCO about its exclusion from the conference; WPFC rep Ronald Koven replied in Catch 22 style that: “I can only share in your attachment to freedom of expression. It must include our right to give voice to speakers of our choice.” He went on to say that: “The main focus of this conference is not about WikiLeaks as such …”. The titles of five of the six sessions contain the words “… after WikiLeaks”. Not that the World Press Freedom Committee is exactly a model of transparency itself. Try to find out via the committee website who the staff are, or who is even on the committee, and this is the result.

MORE

[boppers]

63. Pretty much in his head, yes.

You do know wikileaks has always been about more than Assange, right? If he's a slimy, unethical, figurehead, he deserves to be called out for it.

And he has. In spades.

He's not very happy about it.

He thinks it's a government conspiracy, or a media conspiracy... you know how conspiracy brains think, there's a plot under every rock, and it has *nothing* to do with their personal actions. It never does, their shit does not stink.

This is pretty much how Assange has been trying to destroy wikileaks, always making it about himself, and he's not exactly the ideal person for that.

[2banon]

56. "questionable and illegal sourcing"..

I see. Publishing the Pentagon Papers was certainly illegal. I suppose the pillary that the NYT's received by publishing those documents should have at the least put them out of business, in addition to losing all credibility within the community of journalism.

But History reveals something entirely different.

[boppers]

64. Exactly. Again, Assange didn't publish the pentagon papers.

He's wasn't "the" catalyst for that, either.

Only in Assange's mind is the topic about him. The main topic of the conference is *journalism*, reflecting on *journalism* with sketchy sources.

In his press releases, of course, the topic is wikileaks.

[2banon]

65. I didn't say Assange published the Pentagon Papers..

I believe it was the New York Times if memory serves that published them.. If I recall correctly, it was Ellsburg's friend Tony Russo who actually handed off the documents to the NYT's, it's a been a few decades now. Russo was assisting Ellsburg on this endeavor, and frankly wouldn't have been successful were it not for Russo's help.

It is obvious that Your point is to dismiss/ignore the importance and the content of the information released by wikileaks to the NYT, and a few other Corporate gatekeepers to publish, vis a vis charachter hit job on Assange personally.

Exactly the same demonization tactic used against Ellsburg's person, he also faced felony charges if I recall accurately, as is trying to be done to Assange.

It would be more interesting to discuss at the conference why the Corporate Media hasn't revealed/published everything that was given over to them. And why journalists are simply mouthpieces for the Corporate Security State.

And why isn't that YOUR focus of interest rather than this fixation on Assange personally?

[boppers]

66. Post #20.

"It is obvious that Your point is to dismiss/ignore the importance and the content of the information released by wikileaks to the NYT"

No, it's that Assange is irrelevant to the content, or the release of such content.

"It would be more interesting to discuss at the conference why the Corporate Media hasn't revealed/published everything that was given over to them"

Like every voicemail stolen? I think that *will* be discussed.

"And why isn't that YOUR focus of interest rather than this fixation on Assange personally? "

I don't have a single focus. Assange copied what already existed, and pimped it out in a grand PR fashion. He got burned. The underground document system existed long before wikileaks, and will exist long after Assange destroys wikileaks.

http://cryptome.org/

[2banon]

67. this is an interesting link..

curious as to why all the valuable energy and time spent on wiki character attacks, the information/content is much more important along with alternative source.

c/should create an entirely different op disclosing Cryptome instead! I'll have to bookmark it and come back to it.

[boppers]

69. Cryptome is just another example. It predates "wikileaks".

In hacker(1) culture, this idea, these sites, the whole concept, has been around since BBS(2) days. Assange did relatively little that was new... other than trying to take personal credit for the last 30-40 years of other people's work. Oh, and related to that, "wiki character attacks"? Assange has almost less than nothing to do with wiki(3), either, he created the name to get some of Wikipedia's thunder, when the first version of "wikileaks" actually had a mediawiki system... which was rapidly gamed, and then deleted.

1. Meaning: extreme computer geeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

[2banon]

72. interesting..

I don't generally consider myself a luddite exactly, but clearly, this is a culture I am so *not* familiar with in all that implies. I try to stay somewhat informed, but rather be emmersed in other pursuits such as music and art when I'm not ON the computer or working. Keep in mind, just being aware that computer geek culture(s) exists on this level I have to attribute to the few interviews I've heard Assange speak on the subject.

Thanks for the information.. more perspectives to chew on..

[Hissyspit]

68. "Pimped it out in a grand PR fashion"

Which worked. Which is why he has been targeted. (Yes, the U.S. government wants him extradited, although they have no business doing so.)

[boppers]

70. Only in the same sense that Paris Hilton, or Kim Kardashian, are notable.

Should one take the claims of either of them seriously?

[OnyxCollie]

31. K&R. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. MR. ISSA, I thought you hated the UN!

[boppers]

71. Great article about Assange:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/02/the-julian-assange-show.html