Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Liam McLaughlin

GET UPDATES FROM Liam McLaughlin
 

Can We Take Julian Assange's New TV Show Seriously?

Posted: 19/04/2012 14:24

It has long been the case that those of us who are supposedly most dedicated to human freedom and dignity are also those most susceptible to ideologies of absolutes. It is a bitter irony, and one which has afflicted many great thinkers, including George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, and Arundhati Roy.

The next in line for this strange distinction seems to be Julian Assange, who has launched his own TV show on the Russian state-owned channel Russia Today. As with many controversial figures, the Wikileaks editor is seen as a freedom fighter by some, and a dangerous maverick by others. His first interview for the Russian channel - with Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, head of the Lebanese political-military organisation Hezbollah - will only affirm such opinions about him.

The debut episode of the show, called The World Tomorrow, featured Assange asking stilted questions via a translator to Nasrallah, who was present through a video link. Remarkably, it was his first interview in six years, and made for a fascinating watch for anyone interested in the Middle East.

It was unclear though whether the interview was a completely biased attempt to promote Russian foreign policy, or was just trying to air the kinds of opinions ignored by much of the western media.

Assange's demeanor was difficult to sympathise with as he played the anti-American role - treating the USA unquestioningly as the Great Evil. Clearly such lazy bias is not necessarily helpful to a journalist, and that it just so happens to fall into line with the Russian stance is rather suspicious considering Russian state TV is funding and broadcasting the show. Suffice to say, it will be hard to defend Assange from claims that he is yet another apparently left-wing apologist for Russia's oppressive and absolutist regime. In this sense it is tough to see the programme as serious or impartial journalism.

Anti-Americanism is something which has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war, spearheaded by people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. There is no doubt that America has been one of the main belligerents in the 20th and 21st centuries, responsible - whether directly or indirectly - for a huge number of wars and deaths. You only need to look at Vietnam, Nicaragua, or the Congo to see this. But is it always useful to blame America? For one thing, this mindset can often detract from the complexities of a country's internal problems, which are equally salient factors in creating civil wars and revolutions. Further, if we focus only on America's role in these events, we absolve corrupt, greedy, and downright evil internal actors of guilt.

Unaware of this, Assange failed to challenge Nasrallah on some of his more esoteric or unclear answers, allowing him to come across as a very reasonable man considering that he is portrayed as a dangerous 'terrorist' leader throughout much of the west. Incidentally, The Independent's Robert Fisk has repeatedly remarked on the misrepresentation of Hezbollah in the western press, and despite the interview's shortcomings, Nasrallah's performance on The World Tomorrow could certainly lend some credence to Fisk's claims.

Saying this, we must not forget Hezbollah's close links with Iran and stranglehold on Lebanese politics, as well as its own acts of belligerence - left unchallenged by Assange - including unprompted kidnappings, rocket attacks on northern Israel, and an alleged involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Its support of the violent Syrian regime was also let slide after Nasrallah claimed that Hezbollah had encouraged the opposition to enter talks with the Assads, but that they had declined.

Make no mistake, it is hypocritical of Assange to work for a country which unashamedly represses democracy, murders inquisitive journalists, and crushes regional uprisings. As a champion of freedom of information, he must realise that Russia embodies everything that he is against. But through his lens of anti-Americanism, Assange seems to have fallen into the dangerous trap of "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Saying this, much of the mainstream media in the west is owned by individual billionaires with links to politicians, arguably rendering it as partisan as Russia Today. Some would say that there is no moral equivalence between Russia and the US or Russia and the UK. However, many others would retort that there is. Think Guantanemo Bay, support for illegal Israeli 'settlements', invasive privacy laws, and promotion of illegal wars.

If you follow the recent ignorant line of argument for a pre-emptive strike on Iran, it is clear that the western media does not understand those it demonises, and does not want to. The 'other' is rarely given a voice, and as a result is entrenched in the minds of westerners as a group of faceless barbarians. At least Assange, through Russia Today, is giving those people a voice, albeit one that should be treated with caution.

 

Follow Liam McLaughlin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LiamMc108

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 27
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
cantabria
my default position is wrong
07:42 AM on 05/19/2012
Much better he work for Fox News I suppose and talk about football. Just a thought but why shouldn't they have contact with Iran? Your absurd biased Obamathought opinions about Iran are not an idealist monopoly. I liked his shows, oh and by the way RT is one of the best 24 hour news channels in the world.
11:13 AM on 04/21/2012
The author ought to have pointed this out to everyone, but Assange's interview program is also being made available by Hulu:

http://www.hulu.com/the-julian-assange-show
11:25 AM on 04/20/2012
I don't know what to think about this last move by Assange... But I am certainly very sympathetic to ideals of transparency. Good talk on the subject of transparency, wikileaks and state security:

http://iai.tv/video/an-age-of-transparency
2curious
Inquiry is how we get a grip on life
06:46 PM on 04/19/2012
Liam, Thanks for the "ideologies of absolutes". Assange's work has put some daylight on global vermin
to the discomfort of Presidents and Prime Ministers alike. Information is the new wealth and those who own it are the same major players of finance, insurance, oil, defense and government and are loath to share control.

Julian poked them in the eye with a stick for good or ill. At least someone has.
photo
intotheabyss
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
05:24 PM on 04/19/2012
I agree with Glenn Greenwald on the predictable backlash against Assange's show. Too bad most Americans are so accustomed to US biased filtration of information that they place too much trust in critics like this author.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_reveal_much_about_the_critics/singleton/
photo
MendingFences
Love is a verb.
04:56 PM on 04/19/2012
Any journalist in the pay of the Russians broadcasting into the United States is suspect. Russia is infamous for eliminating "rogue" journalists. Assanges' show will at least further enlighten us on the erroneous perspectives of those opposed to western civilization. In addition, it will cast more light on who our enemies truly are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
falonia
Atheistic Socialist
07:58 PM on 04/19/2012
Yes, lets identify some more enemies so we can wage more war and subterfuge. We need enemies or the economy will fail. The cold war is over and a movement toward peace is not fostered by continuing this enemy malarkey. Erroneous perspectives? Please elaborate. Western civilization is caving in internally, its enemies are here.

Haven't quoted Pogo here lately but I guess its time again. "We have met the enemy and he is us!!
photo
MendingFences
Love is a verb.
10:11 PM on 04/20/2012
We are a nation at war and you are somewhat correct, there is an enemy within our nation that is eroding us like a cancer. Western civilization is being destroyed by progressives, socialists, communists, marxists and radical Islamists.
photo
intotheabyss
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
04:51 PM on 04/19/2012
OOOH, more Washington Consensus propaganda. How very elite establishment of you. What a joke.
photo
MendingFences
Love is a verb.
04:29 PM on 04/19/2012
"As a champion of freedom of information, he must realise that Russia embodies everything that he is against. But through his lens of anti-Americanism, Assange seems to have fallen into the dangerous trap of "my enemy's enemy is my friend.""

It seems that Glenn Beck was correct when he predicted a long time ago that the left/progressives would work together with communists and radical Islamists against their common enemy, western civilization.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beyond left and right
07:15 PM on 04/19/2012
RT has a lot of libertarians and other liberty-minded people on their network. It's hardly a "communist" network. They practically report on Ron Paul every day of the week
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
falonia
Atheistic Socialist
07:50 PM on 04/19/2012
Your understanding of Glenn Becks position and its assertion here pretty well destroys your credibility as a commentator. Please provide us with some GB direct quotes and seal your fate.
photo
MendingFences
Love is a verb.
10:14 PM on 04/20/2012
Don't take my word. Look up for yourself "Communist Goals 1963". It is a matter of Congressional record. Tell me if these things have not already come to pass.
photo
MendingFences
Love is a verb.
10:15 PM on 04/20/2012
Here is a safe bet since you are critical of Glenn Beck. You have not watched his show and checked out the things that he says.
04:25 PM on 04/19/2012
Assange isn't in the, "great thinker" category. He is in the sex offender category and he is a thrid-rate mind at best.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
falonia
Atheistic Socialist
07:46 PM on 04/19/2012
Really? So you have convicted him. Third rate mind? I suggest that his position on US policy and the risks that he has taken to assert his beliefs pretty well negate that finding. . That you don't perceive such then I suggest that your mind ranking needs to be evaluated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beyond left and right
04:15 PM on 04/19/2012
What a ridiculous headline. "Can we take Julian Assange's New TV Show Seriously?" As if we can take anything in the U.S. media seriously. Watch the first episode - it was a professional, learned interview without all the absurd bells and whistles that accompany shows on the major U.S. networks. U.S. media is every bit as biased as RT is, and arguably more so. RT covers issues that the U.S. media wouldn't dare cover - that's why the network is growing in popularity.
02:03 PM on 04/19/2012
All that you say may be true but remember that in the US we don't even get to see and interview of leaders who are critical of American policies. You site Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky but unless you search for them on the internet you will never see them included in any debates or see their views expressed except when FOX distorts them or needs their images as a symbol on which to pour its vitriol.

It may be that Assange is a Soviet dupe of some sort but more to the point, he is bringing to the screen figures that we should be learning more about through direct dialogue instead of the great propaganda machine that goes by the name of US News.

In addition, even though groups like Hezbollah are troublesome, Palestinians may have a point of view worth hearing and some of their grievances against Israel might be well justified. It's just that those views will never get expressed on American TV and those in the US who try and make a point that Israel needs to change its behavior will be drowned out in a sea of charges that they are 'anti-semitic' with 5 new movies about the Holocaust to follow.
01:44 PM on 04/19/2012
"It is a bitter irony, and one which has afflicted many great thinkers, including George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, and Arundhati Roy.

The next in line for this strange distinction seems to be Julian Assange, who has launched his own TV show on the Russian state-owned channel Russia Today."

This argument, apparently lifted from Luke Harding's intemperate rant in The Guardian, has been roundly dismissed Mark Adomanis' Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/04/18/julian-assanges-debut-on-russia-today-the-serious-people-say-it-was-really-bad/
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Liam McLaughlin
04:10 PM on 04/19/2012
Thanks for the article (not sure if it will show, but I am the author) - it makes some very good points, but the issue for me is not that Assange is avoiding criticisms of the Russian regime, it is that he is working for them, presumably taking their payment. This seems bizarre for someone who is being doggedly pursued by America for his dedication to freedom of information, and I wonder to what extent he will feel some debt to Russia in future as a result of this.

As for lifting the argument - no I didn't, it's just a fact we both happened to acknowledge, and one which I felt was worth raising in Assange's case now. In general I'd accept that the Guardian venerate the Webbs who Harding criticises as Stalinist sympathisers, but then again not many papers can keep the opinions of hundreds of writers in check so that they don't messily contradict themselves at some point. Anyway thanks again for reading and commenting.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Liam McLaughlin
04:36 PM on 04/19/2012
Oh and it's pretty difficult to argue that vocal support of a corrupt and oppressive regime is worse than working for it, which seems to be what the Forbes columnist is saying. I'd imagine that it's equally bad in principle, though in practice I'm not sure.
04:53 PM on 04/19/2012
He isn't "working for them."

He has sold the show to RT. He isn't working for them. "Working for them" suggests some manner of employment contract, and a hierarchical relationship within which Assange is obligated to follow the wishes of RT.

That is not the case. According to Assange's statements in a recent interview, RT is a licensee of the television show. Under the terms of the contract according to him, the only thing he is beholden to RT to do is supply them with an episode and an intro. He says he has complete editorial control over the content of the show, and that there has been no interference from RT in its production.

You might believe he is lying about this, but then you have to explain why you think he is lying. It is not by any means a foregone conclusion, just because it fits neatly with your story, that Assange "works for" Russia. That is a fact that you have to establish. It is not self-evident.

It is deceptive to represent this relationship the way you are doing. In no proper construal of the licensing arrangement with RT would anyone suggest that this is "working for" RT.

Why is it that the first comment I posted to this site, in which I made this exact point, has not been cleared?