Why is an award winning newspaper keep repeating in error that Julian Assange was charged by Sweden when it is false? How many times will WIkiLeaks supporters have to attempt to correct the record in the Assange case at this precise point over the last 10 years?
On the 17th of September 2020 I wrote once more to the Reader’s Editor at The Guardian:
“In your article syndicated from Reuters here:
You write that:
“In 2012, Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was accused of sex crimes. He always denied the charges and they were later dropped. ”
I have looked up the original Reuters article here: https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN26726W which says:
“In 2012, Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden where he was accused of sex crimes, which he denied and which were later dropped.”
And I am baffled as to why your article is different from the original. It is incorrect to say “charges”. Julian Assange was never charged in Sweden. He was wanted for questioning in a preliminary investigation which was opened and closed three times without an inditement ever made.
The UK’s Supreme Court already in 2012 clarifies here:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html
and more recently, so does Swedish Prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson by stating that:
“I would like to make the following very clear: my decision to re-open the preliminary investigation is not equivalent on whether or not to file an indictment with the courts. This is the matter we’ll have to revisit,”
as reported by CNN here: https://m.cnn.com/en/article/h_5b11cbb6d7c0de5c86571df5796c8a96
and in Reuters here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange-sweden/sweden-drops-assange-rape-investigation-after-nearly-10-years-idUSKBN1XT1QO
“Deputy Chief Prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson reopened the remaining case after Assange left the embassy, but she said on Tuesday the passage of time meant there was not enough evidence to indict Assange.
“After conducting a comprehensive assessment of what has emerged during the course of the preliminary investigation I then make the assessment that the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment,” she told a news conference. “
In the name of accuracy and truthful reporting, could kindly replace the word “charges” with the word “allegations”
A month later I received their correction:
Thank you for your email, and many apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
I think you are correct that the reference to “charges” was made in error. The article has now been amended accordingly, and footnoted to say:
• This article was amended on 5 October 2020 to clarify that Julian Assange was not charged with sex crimes, as an earlier version said. He had faced allegations, which he denied, and the investigations were later dropped.
I hope this address the concerns you had raised.”
Was the syndicated article (copy paste from Reuters) amended to include the word ‘charges’? Why it took a month for such an easy correction to be made? When will The Guardian stop spreading false information about Julian Assange, defaming him?
RSS - Posts
Thank you Greek Emmy for your astute efforts on behalf of truth in the media and of Julian Assange. You have provided me the means and the inspiration to write to the Guardian myself…
Attn: Elisabeth Ribbans
Guardian global readers’ editor
The Guardian, Kings Place,
90 York Way,
London, N1 9GU,
United Kingdom
Thursday, 15 October 2020
Ref: Misreporting on Julian Assange
Dear Ms Ribbans,
I have written to you previously on the matter of misreporting about Julian Assange, particularly the false assertion that Julian Assange was ever ‘charged’ with rape in Sweden.
However, there is yet another instance of misreporting by the Guardian on this matter, which you can read in detail at https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/14/correcttherecord-in-the-assance-case-the-guardian-once-more/.
In this case, an article was syndicated from Reuters and was, it appears, deliberately altered by The Guardian to add, not simply transcribe but deliberately to add, a misleading imputation that Assange was Charged with Rape by the Swedish Authorities.
This is not a case of simply coalescing in a widespread and commonly accepted falsehood but rather it is a quite deliberate and dishonest attempt to maintain one. It becomes very clear that The Guardian is engaged in an effort to denigrate Julian Assange and to propagate a terrible misrepresentation of his character; what many would call a deliberate ‘character assassination’.
Would The Guardian care to publish something to redress the wrong done to Assange, a significant article perhaps, to properly correct the record? Even more importantly The Guardian should declare the reasons for which all this effort was made to create a negative public opinion about a man who truly deserves heroic status. Julian Assange has made a truly innovative, journalistic effort to bring important truths to the public about very important matters; will The Guardian give him due credit and proper recognition?
Yours Sincerely,
Allen L. Jasson
Well done, well done, well done. We wait then.