Strange Days, Indeed

Scenes from Julian Assange's WikiCircus in London.

BY COREY PEIN | DECEMBER 15, 2010

Julian Assange won two victories in London today. First, of course, there was the matter of his bail, which was granted by a British judge -- pending an appeal by the Swedish government, which wants to extradite Assange on sexual assault charges. The Wikileaks founder surrendered himself to police a week ago, and has been in jail since.

His second victory, however, may have been more important, if less tangible. I witnessed it a few minutes before 3:30 p.m., Greenwich mean time, outside the Westminster Magistrates' Court, where I was uncomfortably squeezed amid dozens of news photographers, reporters, and producers from around the world -- representatives of the old media in all its myriad forms. Suddenly a great whooping went up from a huddle of the Assange faithful across the street, penned in by wary police officers and metal barricades."He got bail!" someone shouted.

This was the news everyone had been waiting for -- and it came not from any of the media organizations camped outside the courthouse perimeter, but from one of the twentysomething demonstrators following the court proceedings via Twitter on a mobile phone. As soon as the cheers quieted, a TV newsman turned to face the camera and relayed the news, citing Twitter as his source. The implication couldn't have been clearer if Assange himself had scripted it: The WikiLeaks model of information distribution -- an unmediated firehose, arriving via many outlets and with zero vetting -- had triumphed. The old media, as it had been since WikiLeaks first began dumping heaps of U.S. government documents into the public domain this summer, was adrift in a world suddenly run by computer science majors.

I had arrived at the courthouse -- arguably the least architecturally impressive one in London, located between Westminster Cathedral and the Thames -- a few minutes after noon to find the hearing room already packed. "You could do something to get extradited," a television cameraman cheerfully suggested, when I asked how to get inside. "Or show up drunk." The press photographers, with their cigarettes, tiny coffee cups, and North Face jackets, lined up in the middle of Horseferry Road, facing the courthouse. They were joined at first by just a handful of protesters; many more arrived later, after the police finished barricading both sides of the road, segregating the press on the north side from the protest on the south side.

Aside from the few protesters who'd shown up early, the dozens of reporters on hand had no one to interview and no pictures to take. Out of habit, the journalists shoved and jostled one another. It was, as one newswoman put it, "a shit fight -- a quality shit fight." Throughout the afternoon, I watched TV reporters perform multiple takes of the same stand-up, dutifully reporting the non-news in various languages. The sign-offs, invariably, went something like this: "One thing is clear: the intense worldwide media interest in the case of Julian Assange will continue. His fate, however, is unknown."

There was some jealous grumbling that the Sunshine Coast Daily, a 22,000-circulation paper in Queensland, Australia, had scooped the world by publishing Assange's statement from jail. Rubbing salt in the wound, one of the paper's reporters had apparently accompanied Assange's mother into the courtroom. Outside, everyone else waited amid the millions of dollars of broadcasting equipment. "This is really when you want to have Twitter," a TV reporter said to her camera-toting colleague. "To know what's going on."

In the information-starved environment of a media scrum, the arrival of an important-looking outsider can spark a stampede. Twice I was nearly crushed by the camera mob as it swarmed around a person entering the courtroom. Once, I recognized the face at the center of the scrum: John Pilger, the documentary filmmaker who has made himself an apostle of Assange's information revolution. ("That mindset that only authority can really determine the truth on the news, that's a form of embedding that really now has to change," he told a reporter elsewhere on Tuesday.) It was an odd sight: News organizations that could no longer properly fund a bureau in Baghdad throwing their limited resources at a mad scramble for soundbites from a man predicting their extinction.

Oli Scarff/Getty Images

 

Corey Pein is an American journalist living in London.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

JKLAIRWIN

1:03 AM ET

December 15, 2010

Shady?Unethical? Amoral?

Why are the backers of Foreign Policy so unnerved that they publish garbage like this? Are they so afraid of the truth? Journalism is all about exposing the lies and distortions of the powerful. Or at least it should be. Covering up for them is the business of the establishment. Nothing in the WikiLeaks releases so far has done anything except embarrass those who should be embarrassed. Foreign Policy should be ashamed of this whole issue, and of its complicity in the smear campaign against Assange and WikiLeaks.

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

11:34 AM ET

December 15, 2010

The answer should be obvious

Most of the people writing for Foreign Policy are either directly or indirectly involved in the foreign policy apparatus of the state. As such, they're not going to be highly supportive of a man who just pulled down their underwear before the world stage.

At the heart of the issue is the power to enact change. At the current moment, the vast hordes of clods out there are merely concerned, but powerless; we've awakened to the failures of democracy. We now understand that no matter who is in charge, the situation stays the same. How else can you explain why various European countries whose populations are adamantly opposed to their involvement with American wars continue to commit troops and resources to said wars? Democracy is dead.

Assange has offered a vision for the future, a future in which even the smallest actor can play a significant role. You don't need to work your way up the ladder amongst the elite. You can strike back at them from the seat of your couch, and that more than anything else worries them.

 

HEBELLO

3:19 PM ET

December 15, 2010

Good journalism doesn't have to kiss your arse

I don't think that's correct, to be honest. I think this is a well-written piece of journalism. I don't think it's pretending to be a bland, neutral account of events, and it shouldn't have to. It's events at the courtroom through the eyes of one human observer.

Personally, I think Wikileaks is a massive force for good in the world, but we shouldn't accuse people who disagree with us of being corrupt.

 

BSPAG

1:33 PM ET

December 15, 2010

Shady?Unethical?Amoral? HA!

And you cite as evidence for these claims.....blogs and op-eds! /facepalm
Fits perfectly with the themes of this article: protesters with a smartphone doing your job while you and the other 'journalists' wrestle with each other for soundbites and pictures of Assange in a paddy-wagon.
Of course, these 'journalists' are happy to collect a paycheck republishing information that came directly from wikileaks (in form of cables or Twitter announcements) while at the same type demonizing wikileaks for upholding the very same values and ideals they venerate.

 

ORMONDOTVOS

2:50 PM ET

December 17, 2010

The mainstream media will change, but...

They'll continue to pander to the mob, since the mob pays their salary by buying the products advertised on their bosses channels.

They don't care anymore what the provenance of the news is, as long as someone bleeds besides their bosses.

Let's see Wikileaks release some dirt on Murdoch.