In short, a thinly veiled, toxic whitewash that is very deliberately constructed. It uses calculated, multiple omissions, gross oversimplification and classic "tell them what to think at the end" structure to manipulate the reader's understanding of the case. It omits multi government collusion, criminality and corruption, and employs smearing of Assange's character.
It's disgusting because it is so clearly deliberate in its construction, which employs a watery tone to trick the reader into accepting that it must be reasonable because it's "even handed sounding" when in actual fact, it's mealymouthed statist propaganda.
Thanks. What do you make of this Spectator article by Mary Dejevsky?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-assange-compromise-leaves-a-lot-to-be-desired/
In short, a thinly veiled, toxic whitewash that is very deliberately constructed. It uses calculated, multiple omissions, gross oversimplification and classic "tell them what to think at the end" structure to manipulate the reader's understanding of the case. It omits multi government collusion, criminality and corruption, and employs smearing of Assange's character.
It's disgusting because it is so clearly deliberate in its construction, which employs a watery tone to trick the reader into accepting that it must be reasonable because it's "even handed sounding" when in actual fact, it's mealymouthed statist propaganda.
Geezus ... does Shannon Oska even believe the bullshit she writes or does a bottle of wine remedy that?