Media hypocrisy in Rosen case

Here's the latest Narco Polo comic from Rob Arthur, former inner-city teacher and public defender. He's the author of You Will Die: The Burden of Modern Taboos. I interviewed Rob here.


    1. Not really. “They” above isn’t the DOJ, it’s the press, who rally round one of their own, but clearly don’t see Assange as “one of us.” Funny part is, I’ve heard they really despise Fox and everybody who works for them. To be lower than Fox…  wow. All you blogger types with your Cheeto-stained fingers definitely aren’t “one of us.”

      None of which is Auschwitz. In fact, it sounds a lot like middle school.

    2. But… but… Fox reporters often wear American Flag pins! How could they ever fall on the “wrong” side?

      1. If a journalist’s “mistake” is not burning a source, that person’s not a journalist.

  1. I don’t think it’s as stark as this cartoon suggests. Actually, there’s a lot of discussion indicating that many journalists are NOT outraged about the Rosen case and are coming up with round-about ways of defending the government’s actions or minimizing the importance of a reporter being described as a co-conspirator in a warrant. For example, see this piece by the respected veteran reporter Walter Pincus:

    Other journalists, notably Matt Apuzzo of the AP (whose phone records were subpoenaed in the other leak investigation), Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker, and Charlie Savage of the NYT are wondering where the outrage is. You can follow these three on Twitter.  

    1. So the journalists have decided that being a bootlicker is more important than reporting facts.  Got it.

    2. ADM, thanks for the informative comment.

      For the record, I took the “stark” contrast directly from news articles. For example, quoting from a HuffPo lead article, that “Obama’s hyper-aggressive leak policy—and his administration’s potential equation of routine journalistic interaction with criminality—is nothing new. But the fury in the pages and on the websites of elite outlets about these positions certainly is.”

    1. Wait, who did Assange rape? He’s not been charged with anything and most legal systems in the world would scoff at the charge of rape for what he is accused of.

      But go on, assassinate the character of whoever you want. I’m sure your cutting wit is going to change a *lot* of opinions.

      1.  In Sweden it is rape if the woman requests that a condom be used and he doesn’t comply. Assange has been accused of rape and is wanted for questioning. Likely, the questioning will reveal consensual sex occurred. I’ve followed the case and it sounds like the woman initially agreed to sex without a condom, but asked him to wear one after the sex began. The problem is that he probably won’t be allowed to leave, the US will extradite him on espionage charges, at least that is what Assange fears.

        I’m not sure that Assange’s fears are fully justified, but living in an embassy has got to be almost as much a prison as any real prison.

        1. I understand the details of the case entirely, which is why I pointed out that most countries in the word would find that those actions do not constitute rape. Plus they let him go without charge before *conveniently* reinstating the case.

          His fears of extradition to the US are perfectly well founded. If you don’t believe me watch the US ambassador to Australia squirm as he answers questions on the matter. The talking head answers just the way his puppetmasters would have hoped but his attitude is what betrays his words. The big fat joke on the US is that while Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy he’s got all the time in the world to work on what he does.

    1. Fuck off, no one wants to buy your shit products.

      Also: it’s pointless to advertise in BB comments because every posted link gets the nofollow tag. Not that I expect a brain damaged asshole like you to understand what that means.

      1. There’s no point in replying to the spammers. Just hit flag and let the mods banish them to spam hell.

  2. Replying to the comments that I just removed:

    When you reply to a spammer, all that you do is anchor the comment.  I can remove the content, but the name is still there, and it’s frequently a link to an attack page.

  3. Holly shit, I can use the slippery slope argument!

    It’s a slippery slope man. Assange first, now Rosen.

    1. Holy shit, I can use the straw man argument!

      The point of the cartoon, man, was the hypocrisy of the response, not that reporters are all headed to the Big House.

      Also, brah, what you appear to be deriding as a slippery slope argument, is called setting precedent in our legal system.

      1. The precedents gets under my skin more than the hypocrisy and is something we should have all seen coming. The hypocrisy isn’t good either, and highlighting it does bring attention to both issues.

        I was just a bit manic about being able to make reference to the rightfully maligned slippery slope. I should have made it more obvious that it was the legal precedent was it’s target.

Comments are closed.