Jonathan Cook

It's worth noting that The Guardian's response to Assange's persecution left a lot to be desired[0-2] from a whistle-blowing perspective, especially against a powerful organization. That's not to say one should avoid a journalist publication for telling their story, just that it can backfire in its own way if (presumably) that publication starts to get heat from law man. 0: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-02-05/no-fair-hearing-for-assa… 1: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-11-28/guardian-vilification-ju… 2: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assange-denial-…

It's not. Good article from former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook: HSBC and the sham of Guardian's Scott Trust https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-gua… The following is quoted in the piece: > The Guardian is not owned by a trust at all. In 2008, “the trust was replaced with a limited company” that was accordingly re-named “The Scott Trust Limited.” Though not a trust at all, but simply a profit-making company, it is still referred to frequently as ‘The Scott Trust,’ promulgating the widely-held but mistaken belief in the Guardian’s inherently benign ownership structure. … The problem, of course, is that the Guardian functions under the same sort of corporate structure as any other major media company.

This seems a little ... premature? Do we now have trial by TV? Worth reading: A few thoughts on the Russell Brand furore, by Jonathan Cook: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2023-09-17/thoughts-russell-brand-f… ... The media companies now fuelling the public mood via trial by TV are the very same companies that delighted in Brand’s sex-addict persona. As the Dispatches’ archival footage and testimonies make clear, those media corporations willingly exploited his persona – even allegedly at the risk of putting members of their staff and audiences in danger – to increase corporate profits. No one should regard them as good-faith actors in this latest development. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault. In recent years, Brand has often argued that he went on a long and difficult personal journey of redemption, and that he is ashamed of the way he behaved in the past. There is at least ostensible evidence to back up Brand’s claims. There is zero evidence that the Dispatches documentary represents any kind of act of contrition by the media corporations now publicly reviling Brand for his behaviour. They haven’t seen the error of their ways. They are simply cashing in on Brand again – this time by bringing down the very celeb they built up. It’s all money in the bank for them. Pointing this out does not mean one is condoning rape or sexual assault. ...

Israel openly practices racial profiling of passengers[0], something which is not legal in the US (which must instead practice it in secret)[1][2]. I would not want to use Israel's security procedures as a model for the US for a number of reasons - the unabashed racial profiling is one, but a more basic reason is the fact that Israel faces a very real and direct threat, whereas the TSA itself admits that there is no threat of terrorism in the US[3]. [0] From a Jewish publication: "Arab passengers, or non-Jews, for example, are routinely subjected to greater questioning than are Israeli Jews. " http://www.cjp.org/page.aspx?id=218685 [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/racial-profiling-at-boston-airpor… [2]Officially, this was ended a few months ago in Israel (http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-03-26/israel-ends-blanket-racia… - it remains to be seen whether or not this has truly been ended in practice [3] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-in-leaked-…

> and that he didn't filter what he published This has been debunked many times over. It's the Guardian journalists, David Leigh and Luke Harding, that published the password to the unredacted archives. Assange, on the other hand, was "meticulous about redacting names in the documents." https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assange-denial-…

Some more (if less impartial) background: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2021-07-30/craig-murrays-jailing-is…

I think that this was the article I was referencing. I apologize for not linking it with my comment. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-…

Further releasing about this, posted earlier in the week on HN. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-…

I disagree. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-…

I think you're just making stuff up. Here is Jonathan Cook's bio: <https://www.jonathan-cook.net/about/> I don't see any relation to the Unz report nor do I understand why you're even mentioning it. The page you link to doesn't mention Johnathan Cook at all. Please provide a citation that backs up your allegation.

The Swedish case i fraught with suspicious circumstances, and it is fairly certain that they don't have a case, should it come to trial. You may want to read this article, especially the paragraph that recounts how the Swedish prosecutors were told "Don't you dare get cold feet!!" by the British chief CPS lawyer after warning that they would have to drop the charges, and how that email exchange later was deleted, contrary to protocol: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-02-12/the-uks-hidden-role-in-a…

Meanwhile in the pro-Palestine movement, the BBC is seen as being so pro-Israel some people think their editors should be prosecuted[1]! (for what, I am unclear on) 112 BBC journalists recently signed an open letter accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias[2]. Domestically, every single political movement feels the BBC is biased against them. Their dry reporting style is at odds with what many, especially Americans, are used to. Unlike the author of that blogpost I do not really have a problem with them not using the word 'genocide' but I do take issue with some of their selective reporting (of course, every outlet must make a selection and everyone will have a problem with it). For example, Israeli newpaper Haaretz has been doing a lot of reporting on IDF soldiers being ordered to fire on crowds of unarmed civilians at aid sites[3]. The BBC does acknowledge it, but it's buried behind a headline about the IDF starting an investigation[4]. They do this because they always prefer quotes from official sources to eyewitness stuff. [1]: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-06-20/bbc-editors-trial-israel… [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3926pSPNwXd8j7I716CBJEzqT_vJjdab6… [3]: https://archive.is/pQw3k [4]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9vveg0vp9o

The one commissioned by Keir Starmer? Lol. No, I haven't. At a glance though, it seems to be making the same "mistake" that you are: > Forde’s seeming even-handedness is, in fact, a continuation of factionalism by other means. The report’s implausible premise is that Corbyn and a handful of staff in the leader’s office wielded as much factional power as the combined might of Labour HQ, the parliamentary party and the entire media establishment. Each side was apparently equally obstructive and uncooperative; each fed the other’s political paranoia. > That misrepresents the true balance of power in Labour – and the reason why Corbyn spent his years as leader permanently on the defensive, battling internal revolts and media firestorms. ... > The same lacuna can be found in the Forde report’s analysis of Labour’s “antisemitism problem”. Starmer has stepped up the crackdown on left-wing members on the basis of a supposedly continuing concern about the prevalence of antisemitism in Labour’s ranks – a claim at the heart of the Labour right’s efforts to discredit the left under Corbyn. - https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2022-07-21/forde-inquiry-labour-starmer/ Here's a helpful tip - anyone calling Corbyn an anti-semite is either a massive piece of shit, or incredibly ignorant.