Hacker News Reader

Comment by tt433 | Hacker News Reader

Given the apartment disconnect between the reality Murray describes in his reports and the reality we can observe today, do you think you'll read his content with a higher degree of skepticism in the future? His headlines are all calibrated for maximum outrage, that alone turns me off from reading them. Edit to eat crow: only one article has a sensational headline

View on HN

Honestly, his articles where so overwhelmingly obviously biased and lacking any sense of journalism that it was actually painful to watch the number of people on this very site enthusiastically promote him as some kind of truth-seeking hero.

It's valid to oppose the Assange extradition, be concerned about the impact on free speech, and any number of other things; Murray is not a reliable narrator on any of these issues, so if you do want to examine his content remember to do so with an extremely heavy dose of skepticism.

What specific incompatibility do you find between his reporting and the ruling? It seems to match quite well?

People on here have already made up their minds about Assange/Snowden etc, even if damning evidence came out against them, they would still find a way to spin it one way or another.

Cases like these I doubt the truth will ever be known/come out. There is too much political BS surrounding it.

Not really. If you read his coverage it does mostly accord with the final judgement. I.e. the judge rejected all defence claims on whether the extradition request was proper.

It was blatantly obvious where his sympathies lay, so I read them with a grain of salt from day one. But florid (and occasionally hilarious) writing style aside, I have no reason to doubt the factual content of his reports, which repeatedly demonstrated that the whole process was a mockery of justice and the scales were stacked against Assange.

The reality that we read today confirms Murray in that the Judge agreed with the US Government in pretty much every area of the extradition request.

it does not harm Murray nor encourage people to be more sceptical of him.

Mind drawing out these differences for the rest of us?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com