A question of trust
I'm not the biggest fan of Julian Assange in the world, as I've made clear before. But I don't think that means anyone should be quick to condemn him on the strength of the Ian Hislop article in Private Eye, either. To do that would be to trust Hislop's (disputed) version of events, and I don't see any reason why I should do that. It's not that I don't believe Hislop, or assume that he'd make anything up, because I don't; but it's just that, as with all these things, it comes down to a question of trust. Whom should we believe more? Assange, or Hislop?
Hislop appears to be saying he wrote down 'what he could remember' of a telephone conversation with Assange; Assange says that he didn't say the things he's said to have said. So where does that leave anyone? I suppose it comes down to whom people are prepared to believe - Ian Hislop or Julian Assange. It's tempting to go with Hislop, but in the absence of a record of that telephone conversation, that simply doesn't seem sensible to me. It all comes down to 'he said, he said' and we're left knowing little more than we did before. Who knows what was said? Only the two of them, and they're not agreeing about it.
If Assange is guilty of saying the things he's reported to have said, he's clearly toxifying the image of Wikileaks. But it all comes down to 'if' and unless and until there's compelling evidence, I don't think it's fair to conclude that he did say what Hislop said he said. Which isn't to say that Hislop isn't being entirely honest about everything, because there is no reason to suppose that he isn't - and I certainly don't think Hislop is part of some great big conspiracy against Wikileaks. On the other hand, it's easy to make a genuine mistake when you don't have a record of what's been said, and in the absence of such a record, can you really be certain of what someone else said? I don't know. I don't think so.
I don't trust Assange and I don't trust Hislop. Why should I?
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
March 2nd, 2011 - 12:26
Wikileaks is much more than Assange. Why the focus on him?
March 2nd, 2011 - 13:57
I guess it’s something to do with the news media’s desire to personalise stories, but there might also be an element of an ego at work. Maybe a bit of both, I guess.
March 2nd, 2011 - 15:17
“I don’t trust Hislop. Why should I?”
Because Hislop is a friendly uncle who has been on the telly and Assange looks a bit shifty.
That might sound facetious but it’s what it will probably come down to.
March 3rd, 2011 - 12:13
A friendly uncle? For Heaven’s sake, Hislop looks like William Hague!
I hope that the ghost of Peter Cook haunts IH every night.
March 2nd, 2011 - 16:17
Could Hislop be slightly pissed off by the fact that Wikileaks has done more damage to the most powerful political administration on the planet in the space of just a few months, whereas the organ of which he has been editor for the past 25 years has done nothing but attract attention for being sued by egotistical individuals, politicians and ‘celebrities’?
Or is it a simple case of two blokes not liking each other very much and getting their wires crossed, or maybe not…..
March 3rd, 2011 - 08:54
Private Eye – and Ian Hislop by association I suppose – have a long and proud history of being taken court and sued and so forth which makes it odd that Hislop didn’t have the sense to at least record the conversation for proof. It’s strange that you can hardly catch a breath these days with out some-one being caught on camera phones saying appaling things yet reporting of this (potentially) explosive conversation boils down to “Well, I think he said something like {buzzbuzzbuzz}”
March 4th, 2011 - 16:54
Yep, it is odd that this conversation is being transcribed from memory and not from one of the many dozens of cheap gizmos that can record phone calls. It’s just one media personality’s word against another.
March 5th, 2011 - 17:52
I’m no fan of either Hislop or Assange, but I hope for the sake of the WikiLeaks project in generaly that the latter will have the good sense to stand aside before this becomes too serious. People are already split on whether WikiLeaks is a good idea – having their figurehead on trial for sex offences, and now in the media as a potential racist is just too much,
March 10th, 2011 - 17:04
The main issue for me in trying to ascertain the veracity of Hislop’s account is asking the very simple question: Why would Assange even bother to say any of these things, knowing how easily they could be used against him? By all accounts he seems to be fairly level headed in the interviews I’ve read. His guilt or innocence in the rape case in question is a rather complicated affair that I think John Pilger has summarised neatly in this article: http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-war-on-wikileaks-a-john-pilger-investigation-and-interview-with-julian-assange
And articles like Hislop’s only serve to feed into the hysteria around the whole affair.
Certainly, Assange can seem grandiloquent in his pronouncements of a quest against the evil establishment, but I’ve yet to see good evidence that he is a raving lunatic: which is how Hislop portrays him.
Hislop, on the other hand, despite being a familiar face, in this instance has every reason, both professionally and personally, to strain the truth. Given that he seems to dislike Assange on a personal level, judging by his tone, but also because journalists in general seem increasingly begrudging of Assange’s exposure (who is only one man after all), and of wiki-leaks political and journalistic success more generally.
Of course without further evidence we’ll never know, but I salute your decision to reserve judgement. Nonetheless, as they say, you don’t have to win the debate, you simply have to muddy the waters.