
A stiff sentence: redacting Julian Assange from the record - mmphosis
https://commonground.ca/a-stiff-sentence-redacting-julian-assange-from-the-record/
======
IfOnlyYouKnew
Editors and authors share the creative "ownership" of an article. Here, they
did actually come up with a somewhat satisfying compromise (the note),
although punting the difficult decisions to the reader is somewhat cheap.

FWIW I probably agree more with the editor than the author. Yet I found their
note rather obnoxious, and the author missed an easy chance to score a point
for his "side".

The final decision not to publish an article including the disagreement was
the author's. It was him who wanted only his side in the article, not the
editor. So I don't quite see the scandal he makes out.

(In any case, it's insane how people are unable to entertain the theory that
Assange is _both_ an important and positive figure in the fight for privacy,
_as well as_ a creepy misogynist with the sort if psychological issues
required for that self-imposed martyrdom in the embassy.)

~~~
alentist
Why do you agree with the editor’s censorship? Also, you say he’s “a creepy
misogynist”—what’s your evidence for that claim (genuine question)?

~~~
QuanticSausage
The article does a good service explaining that part.

------
mark_l_watson
This seems so clear and easily understandable: news media are owned by
elites/corporations who use media to get their way in just about everything.

Part of the benefit of owning and controlling news media is: avoid letting the
public know inconvenient truths (1), the ability to affect election results,
and the ability to split the population into more easily controlled groups
(e.g., Democrats and Republicans in the USA).

The elites have won, game over. Hopefully they will have some self control
over their greed and leave us sufficient crumbs so we can at least have a
civil society.

(1) this was Assange’s crime, letting the public know things that the elites
of the world did not want to become common knowledge.

------
zepto
_“the willingness of an editor to redact a public statement simply because he
feels the source is no longer on Team Progressive”_

This says it all.

------
asfarley
I think this article should identify the journal and editor; how else will
anything change?

~~~
rekabis
On the one hand, the author is taking the high road. Good for him. He has
principles, and sticks by them.

On the other hand, you are completely and utterly correct. There are people in
the publishing industry that should have never been allowed into their
position. This editor sounds like a prime candidate for charges of moral
cowardice and partisan opinions unbecoming a member of the “free press”.

------
twoflower9
Another title might be "The Last Journalist".

