(edit title) The truth about Assange Breathtaking Hypocrisy Options

[Garry Jones]

Quote:
What does it say about the sanctimonious Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that he would seek the protection of an autocratic regime in Ecuador -- a country that is one of world’s worst crusaders against free speech? And, what does Ecuador’s irascible President Rafael Correa have to gain by granting asylum to a man who, in addition to waging a reckless campaign to publish thousands of stolen documents, is wanted on separate rape and molestation charges in Sweden? The two men are such archetypal pariahs that one of the few ways either one of them could damage his reputation is by associating with the other. They were made for each other.

Assange must know that, since taking office in 2006, Correa has treated the independent media as a political foe that must be vanquished. His modus operandi of using government regulators and corrupt judges to persecute the media can be traced back to 2008, when he sent armed police to take over two television stations and nearly 200 other companies.

Source:
At last a website with fact not coloured by any political belief.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/...peech-crusader/

Fox News trademarked the phrase "fair and balanced" and are the benchmark for any website that regards itself to be neutral. Fox tell's it like it is. Period!

[klubbnika]

Not to mention that Correa changed the constitution to suit him becoming a president for the third time.

Take Assange, and keep him there please. The civilised world do not want him.

[Gamla Hälsingebock]

I wonder how much he will be paid for the book and movie rights for this mess.

[Gamla Hälsingebock]

I wonder how much he will be paid for the book and movie rights for this mess.

[klubbnika]

He already wrote a biography that didn't sell so well at all. It was out last year, I think.

[grymagnusson]

While your basic point about Correa and Assange is all well and good, citing Fox News as a credible news source is frankly ridiculous.

"Fair and balanced" was a slogan cooked up by some PR guru to show that Murdoch, for all his faults, at least has a sense of humour.

[Garry Jones]

I think Fox News is very balanced when I watched it. Some Oreaily bloke was very fair in his interviews.

[grymagnusson]

I can now see you have the same sense of humour...

[skogsbo]

Fox News trademarked the phrase "fair and balanced" and are the benchmark for any website that regards itself to be neutral. Fox tell's it like it is. Period!

watching fox news for balanced accurate views, would be like relying on The Sun or Afton Bladet for research on your masters degree in Politics.

You are correct about Assange and Ecuador, but oh so wrong about Fox, have you been brainwashed?

[Garry Jones]

I remember this Oreilly bloke explaining that the BBC was biased and that Fox News had won awards for being balanced and fair.

I always believed the BBC to be fair and disregarded his info. But then the BBC came very close to people I know and twisted things that were said. A few of my old mates were portrayed in a very unfair documentary in a very bad way. Many of these sufferred broken relationships and sackings at work. All because the BBC wanted to make a point. They went looking for a story and when one wasn't there they made one up. So I realised there was a lot to be said for the points made on Fox.

I wonder what there coverage on Assange is like though? I hope they are presenting his side of the case.

[cogito]

Garry,
Because I gather Fox News (It's Murdoch! The horror!) is forbidden fruit, I leaped at the chance to tune in it while staying in hotels on a recent trip to Asia.
Big surprise. Fox proved to be more balanced than either CNN or the BBC. Most important, there was a clear separation between news and opinion. The news was solid and unbiased, and the opinion people stated clearly their political positions. Interviewees, representing both the left and the right, were far better informed than those of other news media.

An added bonus: the women commentators were intelligent and beautiful (though not as beautiful as those on Al Jazeera or that newsreader on Francee 2).

A pity Fox is unavailable in Europe--probably because the dreary state controlled media fear competition. I do wonder, however, how is it that the self-righteous Fox-haters here are so familiar with it? Are they simply regurgitating what the the BBC tells them to think. Or are they secretly accessing it here? If so, tell me how.