Tweet
The interview was anticipated. CNN host Erin Burnett was to have WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, author of the new book, Cypherpunks, come on her show. Another pundit, Brooke Baldwin, promoted it on CNN just after 3:30 pm EST and said, “You have quite the big interview scoop, so we’ll talk about that in a minute,” just before getting to a segment on Pfc. Bradley Manning.
Burnett set out to do a hit job on Assange. From the beginning, Assange tried to discuss what he found to be important and not trivial or plain disingenuous and ignorant. As the clip shows, he got into how companies are working in countries to engage in widespread surveillance showing documents. Burnett reacted, “I’m curious though about this — A lot of people share this fear about being under surveillance, right? Some people might say you go way too far on it, but people do share your fear. But you are someone trying to champion and like I said benefiting by the Internet by putting out information governments don’t want people to have.”
“Some people might say” is Burnett saying what she thinks. She thinks Assange’s fear of the surveillance state goes to far. She does not want to talk about this issue and, though Assange began the interview ready to talk on this topic, Burnett is prepared to steer this to Ecuador (but not before casting his agenda as something that is nefarious and shady).
She asks him about whether he has a lung infection since he’s had to stay there and if this is true. Assange says he is not important and has been in an “extraordinary situation” for over two years. But, “what is important is this development that is affecting all of us.” Burnett cuts him off:
BURNETT: Can you answer the question whether your sick or do you not want to talk about it?
ASSANGE: I don’t think it’s important.
BURNETT: Let me ask you this…
ASSANGE: … We are in an extremely serious situation…
BURNETT: .. I know. Let me ask you this though about Ecuador because look, as you say you’ve been in there in this extraordinary situation for five months. They’ve provided you asylum. They’ve been trying to get you out of the country that you’re in right now to avoid facing charges in Sweden or the US. But when you talk about this governments clamping down on people’s right to speak, Ecuador’s an unlikely champion of your call for free speech. And I wanted to lay this out for you because just this month Human Rights Ecuador reports President of Ecuador, President Correa…
ASSANGE: Serious, Serious…
BURNETT: Let me finish…Let me finish for my viewers then you can go ahead and rip it apart…
Assange won’t have it and says he’s not here to talk about it. He is not about to let Burnett do this “exclusive” interview with him and try to educate him on air as if she knows more than he does about the issues related to press freedom in Ecuador, which he no doubt has had the time to study intensively in his time in the Ecuador embassy.
Burnett then responds to Assange’s remark that what she is seizing upon is a very little thing. She says it’s not a “little thing.” Suppressing journalists is not “a little thing for someone who says is their job is to put out information that governments try to suppress.” And Assange quickly replies that it is a very big problem:
ASSANGE: …It’s a very big problem, the suppression of freedom of speech all over the world, an extremely big problem—And so is the collapse in the rule of law. And you should be well aware that Al Jazeera journalist spent six years in Guantanamo Bay, that there are cases all across the US, that the Pentagon is now taking a position where it is saying arbitrarily, completely invented, that the act of receiving information by any journalist, anywhere in the world, that the Pentagon says is classified and publishing some portion from it or quotes from it is espionage…
BURNETT: …Okay…
ASSANGE: …Saying that is something that applies to journalists and applies to people in government…
BURNETT: …I understand your point…
ASSANGE: … [still talking]
BURNETT: … But the Committee to Protect Journalists says about Ecuador. Let me ask you the question—”In less than five years, President Correa has turned Ecuador into one of the hemisphere’s most restrictive nations for the press.”…
ASSANGE: …As we agreed to this program the issue is the surveillance state….
BURNETT: How do you justify?…
ASSANGE: …We are in a situation…
BURNETT: I didn’t agree to talk about the surveillance state.
Assange then motions and says he can bring on his PAs. And continues saying we have a serious situation here. Whatever is happening in these small countries is not of concern. We must concentrate on what is happening in whole of the world. Burnett then interjects, “Okay, but Ecuador is the country that is preventing you from being arrested the minute you walk outside the door.”
Burnett then makes it clear her focus on Ecuador is because it is preventing Assange from being arrested. Assange still does not play along. He eventually holds up his book and says:
ASSANGE: The topic of this book is what is happening to all of us and the threats that all of us face. You know in the 1930s, certain people saw what was going on. And they saw the general trends. I’m telling you there is a general trend. I am an expert and I’ve lived through it. Other experts have also lived through different facets of this—an American, a German and a French man, all experts on different parts of what is happening legislatively and what is happening in terms of the technology. Now we have all been intercepted permanently. This is a state change. This is not matter of simply a change to any individual. This is a sea change in politics and we are going to have to do something about it. If we don’t do something about it, we run the risk of losing the democracy we have treasured for so long.
Assange won in the end. He was able to get in a good comment on Bradley Manning’s case.
Erin Burnett did not get the segment she wanted except if you go to CNN Video where they are featuring a part of the segment that makes it seem like all Assange was asked to do was come on and talk Ecuador and refused to cooperate with Burnett.
Assange was clearly told he could come on and they would talk about the book. She opened with a question about his thoughts on the Internet. Then, she gradually moved the discussion into one about Ecuador because all she wanted to do was make the point that in her mind she sees Julian Assange, who she thinks is probably a criminal, seeking asylum in a country where the government has no respect for press freedom and he is being used or manipulated for their purposes.
If Burnett had her way, the interview would have been some looney segment about Ecuador exploiting him for their ends to get away with violating freedom of the press. And she would have touted it as “aggressive journalism,” when it is not aggressive at all to set someone up who is the target of one of the most powerful governments of the world and has been granted what someone would consider a refugee status to push for safe transport to Ecuador.
33 Comments
Burnett is a tool of the .01%.
Assange transmitted an important message. Auton #FAIL.
The way she said > “They’ve been trying to get you out of the country that you’re in right now to avoid facing charges in Sweden or the US.” < makes it sound like there already are criminal charges filed/awaiting. God she's awful. At least her agenda is easy to read.
The U.S. has dropped from 20th to 47th in Freedom of the Press rankings.
I wish Assange had asked Burnett to explain that.
Ecuador is not perfect but such a huge drop by the US is inexcusable.
Angry Arab blog has documented how “Committee to protect Journalists” is actually “Committee to protect some Journalists”.
Assange exposed a number of people in the press, especially the US press, as absolute tools. Of course they hate him.
Further proofs of auton #FAIL prior to this:
Burnett is a prostitute who is paid for the way she looks and willingness to sell herself out. She’s jealous of integrity because she has none.
And so might a fifth grade science fair winner of second place debate Hawking. Better get somebody smarter than Burnett, CNN.
I watched that so called “interview” soo frustrated to the point of anger.i wished my TV was interactive and that I could cut Erin out completely..or
Have my TV stick a sock in her arrogant mouth!
But by the end of the so called interview..Jullian had won..like it was a prize fight.
And Erin was exposed as a tool and fool! And a lying sac of garbage for the new world order boys..she merely exposed herself by her behavior…without a shadow of doubt. Anyone with half a brain..could see what she was doing.
It really was nauseating watching Erin..
Jullian wiped the floor with her!
It was really exposed when she carried on about his upper respitory infection..she came across as a damn clown, that she is!
And CNN wonders why it’s ratings suck?
I certainly hope when the new CEO comes on he recognizes ..we the people.. will no longer indulge in this bullshit propaganda network of Wolf the master Propaghandist..and these simple minded bubble heads!
I only watched to hear Jullian..I haven’t watched CNN since my husband and I watched one day..when a “staged” guy sat in a corner..pretending fear..then said bodies were everywhere ..and he and someone with a camera went into what looked like a bombed out building saying bodies were everywhere..the room was like rock rubble..with blankets laid out like they were covering bodies..then the camera man lifted Three blankets..and there was nothing but ROCKS under the blankets…then Wolf went on to keep repeating..there you have it ..,you saw dead bodies! My husband and I sat there with our mouths agape…I then asked my husband..”what did you just see?” He answered..”DEAD ROCKS”.,I said..I saw the same ” DEAD ROCKS”
I then made my husband aware of how the propaganda works. Needless to say it Angered my husband..who never questioned much with the so called media.
The fake news on CNN is no longer palatable to a good percentage of Americans.
If CNN worked on truth as much as they do Propaghanda ..they might..might get viewers back..but at this stage..their brand name is more than tarnished… It’s trash !
And that bubbleheads Erin..needs to be fired the day the new CEO comes on the job..along with Wolf and Piers and Carol Costello!
Thanks for the info.
Burnett, like most of the US corporatist stenographers who like pose as “journalists,” was just doing the exact bidding of her corp. paymasters. CNN is a waste of time & only a smidgeon “better” than Fake Noise. How low the mighty has fallen.
Progressive politicians should take a note – respond to what’s at issue, not to whatever stupid question the interviewer asks.
uhm yes!!! the MSM is TOTALLY WORTHLESS,cut your cable,i did…Netfix the winnah
Cut you cable and Dish uncle Ruppy will be sad,sad sad
What Jim @8 and Margaret @9 said.
don’t own a tv anymore. old analog model didn’t really work anymore, so donated to E-waste program. at this point, no plans to buy another tv. there’s so much crap/nothing on cable, which is seriously expensive. what’s the point?
I can borrow the shows I want to watch for free from my public library, and watch them on my PC.
Erin Burnett is an imbedded war cheerleader. She wants a fair trial, not for Assange or Manning. She wants a fair trial for Sgt. Bales. Burnett is concerned about his children. It is all about the children. Afghan children, not so much.
She is on Team Petraeus. The General makes her feel special.
I watched the interview, and it seems like a botched 60 minutes type of approach. What passes as serious journalism is reduced to this?
However, her question is valid. Anyone in his position would have to ask that question of himself/herself: What am I doing here?
So yes, it is also about Julian. He is unimportant by his own words, yet he is the only one who’s life is at stake in this Ecuador/Britain standoff. No one else is at the embassy seeking asylum.
Conflicts like this are classical subjects for great literature!
Like most (all?) FDL readers, I support Assange and his message re press freedom. However, I don’t think an interview subject should be able to dictate the subject of conversation.
If FDL had an interview with President Obama, would we support him dismissing questions re the Drone Program as not “important?”
It’s not Assange’s place, as the interviewee to say whether he thinks his relationship with Ecuador is “important,” it’s Burnett’s and the audience’s. (Plus, I don’t think there is any doubt that Assange’s current asylum in an Ecuadorian embassy is in fact newsworthy and worth getting Assange’s comments on. There are many articles on FDL about it, right?)
Assange needs to answer these types of questions honestly, and openly if he wants to then speak about his book, and his message of internet freedom. Otherwise, he appears as shadowy as the people Wikileaks aims to unmask.
Burnett was on a witch hunt. She didn’t find one.
I don’t think he handled the question about Ecuador particularly well, and I am a supporter of both Assange and Correa. The correct answer, in my book, is: to the degree that Ecuador suppresses free speech, I condemn it. But suppression of free speech by the US, in the case of Bradley Manning, across the world, through the media (etcetera) is a far, far bigger problem. Or (alternatively) the organization you cite is an avowedly anti-socialist outfit that regularly condemns left leaders who are trying to build viable alternatives to neoliberal capitalism. Etcetera.
I sometimes worry, when I watch these videos that are represented as great triumphs of rights activists over the media, that we wear rose-colored glasses in watching. I find Burnett particularly self-congratulatory, insipid, and dangerous. But if you begin with the assumption–as we must–the much of the general public is on HER cozy side; if we proceed with the awareness that the overarching structure of the media and this particular program is the corporate surveillance nation-state, armed to the teeth, I think Assange is somewhat neutralized in this conversation. Unfortunately.
What I DID catch, and what sticks, is the idea that five million of us now work directly for the security apparatus. We are much closer to wholesale fascism than we like to think.
Oh, please a hit job?! It was a perfectly valid question, and Assange refused to answer. She should have asked and he should have answered but he did not. It makes him look like the hypocrite and the tool, not Burnett.
It was, and is, the perfect conundrum, dilemma or Catch-22. Take your pick. Asking it doesn’t appear to me to be an indictment. Ignoring asking is the indictment, imo, anyway.
Also, we need to be aware of the ad hominem at work.
If you refuse to let a troll hijack a thread, are you a hypocrite?
His reluctance to answer her Q regarding Equador (and honestly condemn its suppression of journalistic freedom) might understandably be due to the fact that his well-being is in its hands?
It was an attempted hit piece. She was baiting by the second question. (Do you have a conscience? Don’t you feel bad for Manning?) Not falling for the traps was necessary.
By the time he was saying “Seriously???” he was frustrated. For good reason.
I also rarely watch television, and I do not have cable, but I happened to be visiting a friend last night who was watching CNN, so I caught the Assange interview. Burnett was predictably snarky….that was to be expected. Her approach was weak, but she didn’t seem to even realize it. She seemed to have this little, “ahah, I’ve gotcha” attitude, when in actuality, Assange is far too astute to be hung up in a cub reporter’s obvious, plan.. And it didn’t appear that she realized that she was interviewing a very cool cookie who listened to her questions and was deliberate in taking his time formulating his answers– that he was going to maintain control of the interview simply because he was clear-headed enough, and sure enough of what he had to say to stay on topic — his topic. She was way out of her depth. The most triumphant moment came at the end of the interview, however, when Assange just carried on with his monologue over Burnett’s big mouth and instead of keeping Burnett on the split screen (Burnett immediately SHUT. UP.), they cut to Assange on the full screen and allowed him to fiinish his critical warning uninterrupted. Burnett had no place in that and nothing more to say, so they cut her out.. I thought the entire episode was fascinating…..
I agree – I think instead of stonewalling on the matter of Ecuador, Assange should have pointed out the hypocrisy of posing the matter in this way. He did do that to some extent (noting how the US imprisoned a reporter for years without charge), but not as effectively as he could have (e.g., by turning the tables on the interviewer and asking her how she justifies working under the protection of the US).
Overall, Assange didn’t do badly, I think, but this particular topic is bound to be used again and again against him, so adopting a more effective way to address it is important.
Its insane. The security state wants to listen in on all of our conversations. They want to make it illegal to have private conversations. They want to protect us from ourselves. Soon we won’t be able to go anywhere alone unless accompanied by two other people so that we can tell on each other under interrogation if need be. A million 911s wouldn’t justify becoming what we are supposed fear.
They are trying to prosecute those who exposed warrentless wiretapping. Even if we presumed it was going on all along those who did should should have been given huge rewards and memorials. Warrentless wire tapping just leads to stuff like what happen with the head of the CIA. Say a Senator wanted to investigate what happened on 911 then suddenly dirt or out of context stuff is used to blackmail that away- that is what the wiretapping is about and that is how it is used around the world. It protection for corruption and its corruption that tries to punish the exposure of corruption. Look at how insane the riders were for the NDAA act. Attempting to make it so the military could disappear (American Citizens included) people without a paper trail. Clearly it was a retroactive thing. Maybe it had to do with the gunning down of the Reuters journalists in Iraq which WikiLeaks exposed.
Yes, I wondered what country could give Assange sanctuary that would meet with her approval. Is there one that has no press abuses at all?
Of course, his whole point is that this is affecting everyone everywhere, and she wants to zero in on one country that happens to be the one he’s in. But he’s safer there than he would be in the US, and that’s the real issue, isn’t it?
I think the reason he didn’t and doesn’t want to reply to that question is that if he did, he would wind up taking the entire interview explaining what is going on in Ecuador – and about 90% of what is going on there is not what most people think is going on there – as our MSM has reported a bunch of crap about it as usual. The media in Ecuador is made up of three parts, unlike here in the US, and it operates in a completely different way than here (translation – completely non-understandable so just make up shit instead of trying to figure it out).
Anyway, then, Assange would not get to discuss his book, or the topic he was supposedly on this program to discuss. Assange, in the many appearances I have witnessed, has always been this way – very focussed on the topic at hand and very very good at not letting others divert him down these other paths. I imagine he will continue to do this anytime he is interviewed.
Just as the Money Party has 2 wings, those wings have their mouthpieces. That anyone takes CNN seriously any more is a surprise.
I don’t think Assange should have tried to explain the media situation in Ecuador. I am not sure how well informed he is on this subject (I am certainly not) and it would have been a distraction at best even if he were.
Assange should have simply demonstrated how hypocritical this whole issue is by asking the interviewer symmetrical question about the conduct of the US and its allies. He could also – parenthetically and unapologetically – made it clear that he is not endorsing (or criticizing) any Ecuadorian policy except for the policy of giving himself asylum from the political persecution that he has been subjected to in the West.