Hacker News Reader

Comment by scoot_718 | Hacker News Reader

I don't believe this blog post paints an unbiased picture.

Unfortunately it is the only source of information on what is going on at this hearing. As Murray writes:

> The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker.

> I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24478259 was flagged, which was by a respected journalist with an interest in the case. The Wikipedia article keeps getting reverted. It's really extremely hard to find or curate decent information on politically partisan subjects these days. Maybe a good area for a (positive) OSINT startup.

OSINT is a contradictio in adiecto. Like a round square.

If INT is taken as per military tradition. If INT is taken as "obtaining actionable knowledge from a mass of otherwise unorganized information" then it makes sense.

What do you think of reading biased texts or texts with a slant; do you need to be aware of it and compensate, is it fine to read it and just reflect over what the text says (without a priori guessing which way the story is leaning)?

It definitely doesn't. Seems like it is trying to compensate for all the bias in the system.

No source is unbiased, but rather than making an ad hominem attack, could you instead address the facts, describe in what way you think it unbiased and your evidence for that.

How in the heck are we meant to know what the facts are from a report written by someone who's claiming that the Salisbury poisonings were a false-flag by British Intelligence?

I get how reading his attitude to the Salisbury poisonings could then cause some scepticism of his reporting of the Assange trial.

I'm leaning the other way, though. His reporting of the Assange trial, plus his coverage of the Alex Salmond trial, and the various other things on his blog, have caused me to reconsider the Salisbury poisonings (and the UK's Russophobia in general).

He's also being taken to court by the government on a ridiculous charge - always a sign that someone in power wants to shut him up.

It's very good when a source doesn't make any attempt to conceal its bias. Most sources pose as the voices of omniscient robot narrators while obviously also being mouthpieces for their owners.

Though why are this hearing public so we can judge for ourselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com