The April 11 issue of The Hindu carried a report on a public debate attended by Julian Assange. During the debate Julian heaped praise on The Hindu, said the report. Hasan's report was quite eulogistic about Assange. But a report by The Guardian presents a different picture. The Guardian adds what The Hindu has left out of its report.
Here is what The Guardian adds…
'But the political commentator Douglas Murray, director of the centre for social cohesion, challenged Assange over the website’s sources of funding, its staffing and connections with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir, who has worked with the site.
“What gives you the right to decide what should be known or not? Governments are elected. You, Mr Assange are not.”
Murray also challenged the WikiLeaks founder over an account in a book by Guardian writers David Leigh and Luke Harding, in which the authors quote him suggesting that if informants were to be killed following publication of the leaks, they “had it coming to them”.
Assange repeated an earlier assertion that the website “is in the process of suing the Guardian” over the assertion, and asked if Murray would like to “join the queue” of organisations he was suing.
The Guardian has not received any notification of such action from WikiLeaks or its lawyers.
Jason Cowley, the editor of the New Statesman and chair of the debate, interjected to ask: “How can the great champion of open society be using our libel laws to challenge the press?”
Here is a link to the report
I keyed in a comment at The Hindu’s website saying it was unethical on the part of The Hindu to leave out the parts of debate unpalatable to it. As could be expected my comment was censored.