Fox permits lone commentator to back Assange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJFFZQTl_U
Tucker Carlson has consistently backed Julian Assange's press freedom rights and questioned the motives of those who are intent on imprisoning him.
In the episode linked above, Carlson speaks with Roger Waters, a founder of Pink Floyd and a strong supporter of Assange.
As excellent as is Carlson's stance, unfortunately it looks as though Fox finds Carlson to be a useful token. If one Fox broadcaster can support Assange's press rights, then Fox need do no more. At least, that's the message -- and no doubt the Trump administration is receiving the message that Assange has no real support from Fox.
It's hard to see how Fox differs substantially from The New York Times, which also has turned its back on Assange and the press freedoms of everyone inside and outside America. Apparently both Fox and the Times have been obeying what the British call a D-Notice with respect to the names "Eric Ciamarella" and "Sean Misko" -- whether or not those names are directly tied to the Ukraine phone call "whistleblower."
From the behavior of Chief Justice John Roberts during President Trump's impeachment trial, it is becoming crystal clear that there exists in Washington a British style D-Notice system for controlling what the press may talk about. Otherwise, how does one explain Roberts' refusal to read a question aloud submitted by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.?
Those in government and press who fail to kowtow to this system are ostracized and penalized. For example, YouTube blacked out a video in which Paul uttered those names without once associating them with the "whistleblower."
Paul was citing a report that those two men had talked among National Security Council colleagues about how they would oust Trump from the White House long before the Ukraine phone call came up.
So the topic was legitimate, relevant and potentially important. But, evidently once the names had been barred from public discussion, neither relevancy nor newsworthiness mattered. What mattered was the authority of those putting out the D-Notice.
As for the Assange situation, even though the Times published materials provided by WikiLeaks, the newspaper is now behaving as though it only unwillingly violated the hush-hush D-Notice system, forced to do so by competitor access to the WikiLeaks materials. So, the paper is signaling, the establishment media favors enforcing the D-Notice system, even to the point of imprisoning Assange for many years.
And one more thing: A "D-Notice" has been put out prohibiting public discussion of America's D-Notice system.
Some say "D" is for "defense." Others say "D" is for "damned."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJFFZQTl_U
Tucker Carlson has consistently backed Julian Assange's press freedom rights and questioned the motives of those who are intent on imprisoning him.
In the episode linked above, Carlson speaks with Roger Waters, a founder of Pink Floyd and a strong supporter of Assange.
As excellent as is Carlson's stance, unfortunately it looks as though Fox finds Carlson to be a useful token. If one Fox broadcaster can support Assange's press rights, then Fox need do no more. At least, that's the message -- and no doubt the Trump administration is receiving the message that Assange has no real support from Fox.
It's hard to see how Fox differs substantially from The New York Times, which also has turned its back on Assange and the press freedoms of everyone inside and outside America. Apparently both Fox and the Times have been obeying what the British call a D-Notice with respect to the names "Eric Ciamarella" and "Sean Misko" -- whether or not those names are directly tied to the Ukraine phone call "whistleblower."
From the behavior of Chief Justice John Roberts during President Trump's impeachment trial, it is becoming crystal clear that there exists in Washington a British style D-Notice system for controlling what the press may talk about. Otherwise, how does one explain Roberts' refusal to read a question aloud submitted by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.?
Those in government and press who fail to kowtow to this system are ostracized and penalized. For example, YouTube blacked out a video in which Paul uttered those names without once associating them with the "whistleblower."
Paul was citing a report that those two men had talked among National Security Council colleagues about how they would oust Trump from the White House long before the Ukraine phone call came up.
So the topic was legitimate, relevant and potentially important. But, evidently once the names had been barred from public discussion, neither relevancy nor newsworthiness mattered. What mattered was the authority of those putting out the D-Notice.
As for the Assange situation, even though the Times published materials provided by WikiLeaks, the newspaper is now behaving as though it only unwillingly violated the hush-hush D-Notice system, forced to do so by competitor access to the WikiLeaks materials. So, the paper is signaling, the establishment media favors enforcing the D-Notice system, even to the point of imprisoning Assange for many years.
And one more thing: A "D-Notice" has been put out prohibiting public discussion of America's D-Notice system.
Some say "D" is for "defense." Others say "D" is for "damned."
No comments:
Post a Comment