The worst offender of course was David Leigh himself a confessed phonehacker who went after Rupert Murdoch for the same 'crime'. Hypocrite!
The Guardian crawls.
There don't appear to be many aspects of Julian Assange's life and work that haven't attracted controversy. His decision to seek the shelter of the Ecuadorean embassy and apply for asylum in that country to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assaults against two women, is just the latest twist in an extraordinary life story.
He is a man who inspires strong feelings in those who meet him. His friends and admirers are indefatigable while his detractors groan with each fresh turn of the story. The Guardian worked closely with Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to publish a series of stories based on the five significant tranches of material released from the mass that was leaked to WikiLeaks allegedly by US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.
The Guardian's involvement began with the release of the Afghan war logs. In this, and the next two releases, WikiLeaks co-operated with the Guardian, which brought together a group of papers, including the New York Times, to assess and edit the material. By the time of the release of the final batch – the Guantánamo files – the relationship between Assange and the Guardian and the NYT had foundered, although Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor-in-chief, still supports many of the principles of WikiLeaks and would support Assange in any attempt by the US to extradite him over the release of the cables.
One particular aspect of the reporting of Assange's fight against extradition continues to cause problems. It is always important to report with precision when dealing with criminal allegations. They are often complex and a slip may be unfair to the accused or even wreck a trial, rendering the newspaper liable for prosecution. When dealing with unfamiliar laws and procedures of another country, journalists have to be even more careful.
Assange's situation is complicated. His fight to avoid extradition has gone all the way to the supreme court where yet another twist meant that he had time to consider an appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. In some stories and comment articles Guardian writers have stated that Assange "is facing charges" in Sweden, which Assange claims is inaccurate. This has led some of his supporters to think that the Guardian is carrying out a vendetta.
One reader wrote: "As a committed Guardian reader of 40 years, I recognise the futility of what I'm doing but feel I should make the effort. I wish to register my disappointment at the tone and content of the reporting on Julian Assange, who has not yet been found guilty of anything, and for whom extradition to the US from Sweden is a genuine and serious threat."
However, it is a major plank of Assange's appeal against extradition to Sweden that he has not been formally charged. He complained to the Press Complaints Commission in January 2012 that it was inaccurate for publications, including the Guardian, to state that he "faced charges" but his complaint was rejected. The PCC adjudication stated it was not in dispute that he had not been formally charged but the articles under complaint "had alluded to 'charges' more generally".
However, the PCC said in the last line of its adjudication that it would "take the opportunity to draw the complainant's concerns in this respect to the publications' intentions". Since then the Guardian's reporters and writers have largely referred to the "allegations" or "accusations", but there have been instances where the term "facing charges" has been used.
Whatever the wider meaning, for the sake of clarity, consistency and fairness, the Guardian's head of news has sent a note to editorial staff to state that in future all copy will refer to allegations or accusations.
The Guardian crawls.
There don't appear to be many aspects of Julian Assange's life and work that haven't attracted controversy. His decision to seek the shelter of the Ecuadorean embassy and apply for asylum in that country to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assaults against two women, is just the latest twist in an extraordinary life story.
He is a man who inspires strong feelings in those who meet him. His friends and admirers are indefatigable while his detractors groan with each fresh turn of the story. The Guardian worked closely with Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to publish a series of stories based on the five significant tranches of material released from the mass that was leaked to WikiLeaks allegedly by US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.
The Guardian's involvement began with the release of the Afghan war logs. In this, and the next two releases, WikiLeaks co-operated with the Guardian, which brought together a group of papers, including the New York Times, to assess and edit the material. By the time of the release of the final batch – the Guantánamo files – the relationship between Assange and the Guardian and the NYT had foundered, although Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor-in-chief, still supports many of the principles of WikiLeaks and would support Assange in any attempt by the US to extradite him over the release of the cables.
One particular aspect of the reporting of Assange's fight against extradition continues to cause problems. It is always important to report with precision when dealing with criminal allegations. They are often complex and a slip may be unfair to the accused or even wreck a trial, rendering the newspaper liable for prosecution. When dealing with unfamiliar laws and procedures of another country, journalists have to be even more careful.
Assange's situation is complicated. His fight to avoid extradition has gone all the way to the supreme court where yet another twist meant that he had time to consider an appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. In some stories and comment articles Guardian writers have stated that Assange "is facing charges" in Sweden, which Assange claims is inaccurate. This has led some of his supporters to think that the Guardian is carrying out a vendetta.
One reader wrote: "As a committed Guardian reader of 40 years, I recognise the futility of what I'm doing but feel I should make the effort. I wish to register my disappointment at the tone and content of the reporting on Julian Assange, who has not yet been found guilty of anything, and for whom extradition to the US from Sweden is a genuine and serious threat."
It is not a vendetta, it is the difficulty of reflecting the way Swedish law works. Joshua Rozenberg, a Guardian columnist and former legal affairs correspondent of the BBC, said that "facing charges" meant "facing the prospect of being charged". He adds: "Victims make allegations; prosecutors bring charges if appropriate. The fact that Assange had not been formally charged did not affect the requirement he faced to deal with the charges the prosecutor had specified, either by responding to her questions or in court. He could not have been extradited to face allegations."
However, the PCC said in the last line of its adjudication that it would "take the opportunity to draw the complainant's concerns in this respect to the publications' intentions". Since then the Guardian's reporters and writers have largely referred to the "allegations" or "accusations", but there have been instances where the term "facing charges" has been used.
Whatever the wider meaning, for the sake of clarity, consistency and fairness, the Guardian's head of news has sent a note to editorial staff to state that in future all copy will refer to allegations or accusations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/01/open-door-assange-extradition-battle?newsfeed=true
