[_23sd]

It's not "dismissing an idea without thinking about it" when you say "I think this is a conspiracy theory because [evidence]". The only response to the position that too many people with widely varying affiliations and interests have said he's fine, is to say that Wikileaks, Sweden, Ecuador, and the US are somehow united in wanting to hide the truth and in communication to keep their lies consistent. I can't think of many scenarios where that happens, and all of them ought to end pretty quickly with someone whispering to a journalist under the condition of anonymity.

At this point, I doubt the timestamped video and signed message would convince the majority of redditors. The RT interview is a perfect example of the typical conspiracy pattern of grasping at straws to discredit evidence. It's absolutely Assange's fault for not putting this to bed right away, he's probably either unaware or enjoying the publicity.

[ttctciyf]

I find it disappointing that with his long history of passionate journalism - whatever you think of it - on the more controversial aspects of US engagement with the rest of the world, John Pilger is casually suspected of helping to cover up an Assange abduction / extra-judicial assassination, or etc.

I'd find it easier to believe that Bill O'Reilly was on the Sanders campaign payroll, frankly.

[eternalban]

> whispering to a journalist ...

... a member of "free and independent" press? :)

Assange needs to sign a message with his private key. That would be satisfactory. Ideally, the message can be a video that contains information that clearly dates the recording. That would be quite satisfactory.

[_23sd]

This is where we hit some ideological barriers. As a leftist, I can see the perverse incentives that many to most reporters are working with (helping friends, trying to please execs for promotions, not upsetting sources with good info), but I don't see them as affecting everyone in the same way. The Intercept, with its ties to Snowden, would happily declare Wikileaks dead and lead the charge for a replacement. Aljazeera would probably love to paint their satellite news rival as blatantly dishonest. Breitbart prints anything that makes Clinton look bad (Assange dropping dead as he threatened to sink her campaign would do the trick). And that's just the organizational component, a CNN reporter with internal clout and incentives to do so might be able to run this story.

Meanwhile right-wing news outlets sell themselves with the "media is corrupt" line so heavily that people on that end of the spectrum seem to think serving Soros and the Clintons is something they teach at journalism school. "Free and independent press" in scare quotes is probably a message in itself to most readers of r/WhereIsAssange, but it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe that a global conspiracy controls everything from the BBC to the newest online newspapers.

[eternalban]

The Intercept is the baby of a billionaire. Al-Jazeera is BBC debranded. Breitbart's Bannon is ex Goldman Sachs. They all agree on one thing: the binary political world.

> As a leftist

There are 360 degrees of freedom in the non-binary world. There is also up and down. I must inform you that I do not subscribe to the 1 dimensional dialectic hand-me-down space and am ambidextrous.

[mladenkovacevic]

The editing artifacts on that RT video are unavoidable.