> It's quite impressive how he's managed to change my perception of him and wikileaks from 'champions of freedom-of-information / free speech' to 'russian government stooge' over the last few years.

I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them.

He had information that was seriously damaging to very powerful people, and an audience that was ready for proof of their suspicions of political/corporate/media corruption.

This makes him a massive target.

> I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative, instead of them.

I hold a similar opinion to the op, and don't really see how there's any narrative being formed. WikiLeaks own tweets and actions are concerning enough on their own.

> #PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

> The US OCCRP can do good work, but for the US govt to directly fund the #PanamaPapers attack on Putin seriously undermines its integrity.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717459700367790080

I read a fair bit about the Panama Papers at the time and never came away feeling like the focus was on Putin - the main thread was wealthy tax evaders across the globe. The casual mention of Soros instantly sends up alarm bells for me, as he's been a favorite punching bag of the right since the Glenn Beck days.

Later, there was the whole process of releasing the DNC emails in batches week by week close to election time - this felt like deliberate social engineering to me.

And finally, more recently there have been the private messages on twitter between Don Jr. and the WikiLeaks that came out - the way WikiLeaks asked for Trump's tax returns so they could look less partisan, the way they were giving suggestions, that they were communicating to begin with.

There's other bits and pieces that I put less stock in - Assange's show on RT, word that they were offered Russian gov docs and turned them down, etc. But the overall tone and feel has changed a lot since 2010. Hell, you can look through their feed about a week back and they're talking about Clinton's emails and the "deep state".

> Hell, you can look through their feed about a week back and they're talking about Clinton's emails and the "deep state".

Because this is a topic worth discussing.

> But the overall tone and feel has changed a lot since 2010.

Many people think this is because Wikileaks no longer controls their Twitter/Website.

Well that skews things a little bit then. If the Twitter account is not theirs and everybody is looking at it, why haven't they come forward saying: "oh, hey, so, the Twitter account? We don't own it anymore..."

If I'm remembering right, he leaked in exact timely order to help a political cause. It was almost if he was a puppet where someone was ordering him "ok, I want you to leak information X now". However I'm not sure if he did all these in anticipation for political pardon or because if he suspected that Clinton will seek to extradite him more aggressively.

Ya we’re still waiting on Russian docs he promised few years back.

I published my own list on reddit a while ago of the reasons.

And not a single media mention, the entire change in perception was either through Wikileaks’ actions and words, entirely through reading mostly their own Twitter.

Edit, found it:

Some of the reasons why I don't like WikiLeaks:

1. Their cooperation with Roger Stone: "Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be."

2. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

3. Fueling the whole utterly bizarre 'spirit cooking' thing. The world's most pre-eminent performance artist invites the brother of the campaign manager of a presidential candidate for dinner? I'm sure that the degrees of separation to fucking Trump are shorter than that, but no, Hillary is literally the devil. And the whole 'election is rigged' thing with "Trump won't be allowed to win the election"

4. Calling out the Clinton Foundation for receiving money from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's wealthiest countries, and the Clinton Foundation is one of the world's more pre-eminent charities. They have many other donors and Saudi money goes many other places. And the Saudi royal family numbers in the tens of thousands. Sure, some of them will be involved with ISIS. But seriously.

5. "WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so.

6. The RT/WikiLeaks connection

7. Leaking Clinton library records. The chilling effect here is insane.

8. Hitchens, back in 2010: "The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda."

Almost entirely WikiLeaks themselves, posted before the election of Trump even, no colouring in of my opinion by the lamestream media.

Don't forget Julian's winks towards the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Absolutely disgusting.

what were they?

(or better: do you have a link?)

Perfect. thank you.

> 2. "Most of Wikileaks' critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre. Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

I'm confused, isn't the (((3 brackets))) a white supremacist thing for identifying Jewish people?

Yep, that was Assange either being ignorant to a point stretching past credibility or anti-semitic.

Something showing Labour undermining Corbyn would be more supportive of Corbyn / hard left.

Since Russia's relevant interests are in destablising the Atlantic alliance and undermining the European Union, elevating the US- and EU-critical Corbyn over more reasonable elements in Labour is exactly what one would expect.

Not necessarily. It could be to provide tinder for a Labour civil war. Hell, being in Australia I know all about the right benefiting from such a thing. It’s certainly a huge hypocrisy.

>WikiLeaks offers award for #LabourLeaks. Wikileaks offers £20,000 reward for #LabourLeaks with information on how the Labour Party’s top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader." Any chance of a reward for information pertaining to Trump or Russia? I didn't think so.

Given that half of the establishment is hell bent on finding evidence of a Trump/Russia conspiracy theory, whether it exists or not, Wikileaks isn't really a necessary part of the process. If there is something, somebody will share it.

> If there is something, somebody will share it.

But yet they need to offer a 20k GBP reward for inside info on British Labour? I thought “if there is something, somebody will share it”?

Yes. At the time every single British media outlet including the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC were attacking and undermining Corbyn on a daily basis.

Which one of them would you share your secrets with?

Contrast that with the Washington Post, which would wet its collective pants if you found anything on Trump, no matter how minor, and would probably offer a large reward. The NYTimes clearly hates him too. You're spoiled for choice.

> If there is something, somebody will share it.

...and will probably get paid by the mainstream media for it.

That's kinda why I used the phrase 'my perception' - I don't want to make statements of fact about something this vague and political (I'm not in the US before anyone gets upset about my biases, and as for the stooge comment neither do I intend it as an anti-Russia slur). However, I'd be intrigued as to how the current US leadership would feel about an extradition request for Assange.

> This makes him a massive target.

Unless you're insinuating that it wasn't him that has given interviews/presented shows on RT (some kind of imposter?), that he isn't in control of the Twitter account, and isn't actually putting out the publicity materials that WikiLeaks does...

... I don't know how you can spin that he's been targeted. It's is own words and deeds that paint him for being at best a stooge.

> I think it's impressive that the media made you think he was the one responsible for that narrative

because he was. Is the media responsible for the wikileaks twitter account now?

Or his appearances on Russia Today (RT)

The left loved him when he exposed George Bush for shitty behavior.

So, he leaks Russian government secrets while working for them? Seems legit.

By leaking do you mean censoring emails showing Russian bank transfers to Syrian banks, then treatening reporters who actually report on it?[0] Or his tv deal with RT?[1] Or his tacit admission to Pussy Riot he works for Putin?[2] Or his failure to deliver on promised Russian leaks?[3] Or how he turned down Russia related leaks? [4] Or, my favorite, the time that he tried to discredit the panama papers showing Putin's hiding of wealth , decrying it as a CIA plot.

Or are we just talking about the clearly timed leaks of Clinton emails every time Trumps campaign seemed in jeopardy? I can probably be convinced that Assange isn't just a Russian operative, but to just act like he believes in 'radical transparency' or doesn't have shady connections is laughable at this point.

[0]https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-... [1]http://bigthink.com/think-tank/julian-assange-to-host-talk-s... [2]https://www.thedailybeast.com/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokno-juli... [3]https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-r... [4]http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...

>Or his tv deal with RT?[1]

I'm getting tired of that one.

I don't have a dog in this race, and have little opinion on Assange's actions, but media opportunities are media opportunities.

I have absolutely no trouble considering RT and their opinion to be spun, but I don't automatically associate Neil deGrasse Tyson with the opinions of Fox News or Bill Maher for simply being a guest and using the media opportunity to speak to an audience.

RT spins things. BBC spins things. NYT spins things. Fox spins things. MSNBC spins things, it should be no surprise that media outlets, most especially ones funded by a nation state, have a hard bias.

Serious question : if Assange was seeking a media soapbox to sit on top of, what other network choices did he have, being implicated in a feud with western agencies?

You don’t see any logical inconsistency in saying that being paid by Putin doesn’t imply that Assange works for him?

Besides the fact that I see quite a difference between RT and the other outlets you’ve mentioned (I don’t remember multiple journalists quitting from those other organizations because they were ‘being used to spread propaganda’), my answer was to show the multitudes of questionable connections and even more questionable judgements can’t just be reduced down to something that is conveniently dismissed.

If you mean, when you say “legit”, “a common—cliché, even—method for a intelligence service to have their agent demonstrate bogus bona fide in order to either establish credibility or obscure their reporting relationship”, then, yes, I'd say it sounds “legit”.

Truth is lies, lies is truth. How can anyone ever be legit?

Yea, his thorough reporting on Anna Politkovskaya's murder really supports your statement. /s

The only accusation still pending is that, with full knowledge that the young woman would never consent to unprotected sex, he initiated unprotected sex with her while she was asleep, and therefore unable to consent.

The prosecutors have physical evidence of unprotected sex recovered from the rape kit.

They have testimony from a long term ex-boyfriend that they never had unprotected sex, and that he can't imagine her ever consenting to it.

They have testimony from another woman Assange slept with earlier that week who claims that, while she wasn't raped, Assange really pressed (forcefully) the issue of not using a condom.

Given the circumstances, it seems like a reasonably strong case. Deserving of a trial, at a minimum.

Are you sure?

From Wikipedia:

> On 19 May 2017, the Swedish authorities dropped their investigation against Assange, claiming they could not expect the Ecuadorian Embassy to communicate reliably with Assange with respect to the case. Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny officially revoked his arrest warrant, but said the investigation could still be resumed if Assange visited Sweden before August 2020. "We are not making any pronouncement about guilt", she said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_...

I don't know much about it, but I thought he was worried that the UK would extradite him to the US for whatever reason they can manufacture.

Also, I'm not so sure about some of those facts you listed about the case. I saw a TV show about it, and the Swedish rape laws sound very odd, if I remember correctly a woman can consent at the time, then subsequently (the next day) can revoke consent, and that's rape under their law.

It seems the CIA and State Department succeeded at their objective of making Wikileaks irrelevant. Do you have any evidence at all of him being a Russian stooge? Most of the American public has become State Department stooges.

They did it themselves by showing bias in the US elections.

He doesn't need to be a russian stooge to have credibility drop to the level of fox news.

I wonder what their angle is on all this. Give him a place to run to? Silence him to keep him from spilling any beans about collusion with Trump campaign? Ignore him?

He managed, or the media that you consume managed?

While I can’t speak for OP, in my case it’s none of the media I consumed that changed the tide, and all WikiLeaks themselves.

Wait, how is he a Russian government stooge again?

Ever wondered why wiki leaks never published a damning post on Russia? Or why they chose to attack Hillary and not Trump. Or why they facilitated Snowden's passage to Russia? Or why Sweden dropped the case once Trump became president

> Or why Sweden dropped the case once Trump became president

Did you just insinuate the government of Sweden is a front for Russia?

I think the insinuation was that the Swedish charges were on the behest of American executive pressure, which ceased once the American president changed.

Does it publish a lot about Hungary or Greece, does it mean he's a Hungarian agent?

Well Snowden is probably safer in Russia out of all the other places. US is probably not going to render him out of there without a major incident. Is Snowden a Russian agent? Ok besides Hillary who isn't a Russian agent...

Not sure why he didn't criticize Trump. Trump is probably getting enough scrutiny as is? I remember hearing about how many scoops of ice-cream he ate or how long he shook Macron's hand. I am guessing if someone handed him a pile of Trump's emails he would publish it.

Did you change it, or did external actors? Consider your sources of information.