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