Questions for Sally Neighbour re 4 Corners Julian Assange programs

Dear Sally Neighbour

I am what you describe in your tweet as an Assange “Zombie supporter” and this letter an expression of the “madness” you refer to.

I am a filmmaker with 45 years of experience making documentaries. I understand how the raw material of many hours of ‘rushes’ can be edited in accordance with journalistic ethics to reveal the truth (or as close as possible to it) of the subject being explored.

I understand also how filmmakers with a bias, a pre-conceived idea of where the truth lies, or hell-bent on propaganda and character assassination, can manipulate the footage they are working with to achieve their desired result, whilst creating the illusion of ‘balance’. 

I am also an Australian citizen who spent 15 months in a Cambodian prison, falsely charged with having engaged in espionage. Based on the two 4 Corners ‘Assange’ programs you were Executive Producer for I am thankful that the ABC did not apply its investigative skills to informing the Australian public about the reasons for and circumstances surrounding my incarceration.

There are many criticisms that can be made  of the 4 Corners Assange programs and, no doubt, others working in the 4^thEstate with a commitment to truth, accuracy and integrity in journalism, along with members of the viewing public, will write letters of complaint to you and the ABC also. You can dismiss all such criticism as having come from ‘zombie supporters’ if you so choose, but I would suggest that if 4 Corners is to maintain its credibility as an investigative program, the ABC should take note of these criticisms and respond accordingly.

There are many errors of fact, distortion, bias and omission that stand out for me in these two programs but I will address only one of them here, for the time being:

In Part One, “Hero or Villain”, segments of Wikileaks’ 2010 ‘Collateral Murder’ video were included. The most horrific 2^ndpart of it was not. In this excluded footage we see a van driving up to rescue survivors of the airborne attack in which two Reuters journalists, amongst a dozen or so others, were killed. The rescue van has two children in it, visible to the helicopter’s camera. The unarmed rescuers were executed by the US military and the two children injured in this unprovoked attack on them. One US soldier is seen with an injured child in his arms, running from the scene of the carnage.

Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State in 2010 when Wikiieaks published this video, revealing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US military was guilty of a war crime. Why were the following questions not asked of Clinton? Or, if they were asked, why were her answers not included in the program?

(1)  Did the murder of unarmed rescuers and the wounding of two children by the US military constitute a war crime?

(2)   If, on the basis of the audio-visual evidence available it seems as though a war crime was committed, why have no US military personnel been charged?

(3)  Regardless of the legality or illegality of these killings, do you believe that it was in the interest of the public that this footage be published by Wikileaks?

Why was the 2^ndpart of the “Collateral Murders” video not included in your program?  Why did 4 Corners notdelve into the question of why it is that the perpetrators of the ‘collateral murders’ have notbeen charged with a war crime? The question could have been put not only to Hillary Clinton but to others in the 4 Corners program critical of Assange.

Was this editorial omission made because you felt it would embarrass Clinton? Was it because its inclusion would horrify an ABC audience? Learning that the US military fires on unarmed civilian rescuers and children, with the clear intent to kill them and is able to do so with impunity? Or was it that you feared audiences might think to themselves, “Congratulations to Wikileaks and Julian Assange for having brought this war crime to our attention,” and respond with sympathy and understanding to his current plight?

Not showing any of the 2^ndpart of the ‘Collateral Murder’ video amounts to editorial censorship of the kind that 4 Corners practiced in so many ways in its Assange ‘investigation’, whilst at the same time attempting to create the impression of impartiality and balance. 

I have 4 questions for you, for the 4 Corners team and for ABC management vis a vis the “Collateral Murders” video:

(A)If 4 Corners, in July 2019, came into possession of cogent audio-visual evidence that a war crime had been committed by the US military recently, would the ABC broadcast it? 

(B)If the ABC would broadcast it, would the national broadcaster allow staff to censor it by cutting out  those parts of it that did not reflect well on a political party or politician that members of ABC staff were supporters of?

(C)Given the threat that the imprisonment of Julian Assange poses for all of us in the 4^thEstate, and for our democracy, would the ABC decide not to broadcast such a video out of fear that members of its staff might be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges?

(D)Was Julian Assange given an opportunity to respond to the various allegations made about him in accordance with what must surely be a fundamental principle of investigative journalism?

Hero or villain, like him or hate Assange, this last question goes to the heart of what should be of the greatest concern to all journalists working at the ABC. 

In your recent “Zombie follower’’ tweet, along with your “Putin’s bitch” re-tweet a couple of years ago, in your refusal to ask Hillary Clinton tough questions, you have revealed yourself to have a clear bias against Assange and in favour of Hillary Clinton. You should have recused yourself as Executive Producer for these two programs. Indeed, ABC management should have not allowed you to executive produce the programs under the circumstances.

For me, a longtime viewer and fan of 4 Corners (40 or so years), you have besmirched the reputation of one of the most important programs on Australian TV  and damaged the reputation of the ABC at the same time. 

I believe that you should either resign in shame for having executive produced such an ill-researched, poorly-crafted and biased program or, in future, adhere to the investigative journalism standards that have provided 4 Corners with its good reputation worldwide.

best wishes

James Ricketson

FOLLOW UP OPEN LETTER TO PETER GRESTE RE JULIAN ASSANGE

Dear Peter

Following on from my ‘open letter’ to you of 2^ndJuly.

 ‘New Matilda’ recently published the following comment in relation to the Global Conference for Media Freedom held in London last week, which you attended:

Peter Greste backtracked on former denunciations of Julian Assange, noting that the Wikileaks founder is part of an ecosystem of “whistleblowing, accountability and publishing of journalism”, which “we need to be protecting as a whole”. 

Is this statement an accurate description of your current view of Julian Assange’s status as a journalist, editor and publisher? If so, will you, in a follow-up Opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, be amplifying your belief that, as part of the ‘whistleblowing ecosystem’, Assange is in need of ‘protection’?

Your status as a journalist jailed in Egypt, as a Professor of Journalism, as spokesperson for ‘Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and as writer of Opinion pieces such as “Julian Assange is no journalist” (12^thApril 2019) give you enormous power to shape Australian public opinion. Indeed, you have already done so. Over the past few months I have had several conversations with friends who read  your “Julian Assange is no journalist” piece and formed their opinions accordingly. My own experiences have made it possible for me to mount a powerful argument as to why Assange is a journalist but I cannot, as you can, reach a large readership with my counter-arguments.

A public declaration from yourself that Assange is a journalist  and Wikileaks a publisher will help demolish one of the arguments presented by those in the media who present his ‘non-journalist’ status to justify their refusal to support him. Only when the bulk of Australian journalists focus on Assange’s status as a journalist, facing the very real possibility of dying in a US jail, and leave aside questions relating to his character and personality, (including refraining from snide “Putin’s bitch” references) will Australian public opinion swing behind Julian. 

Until there is a change in public opinion, the Australian government – both sides of the political spectrum – will sit on the fence, unwilling to upset our ally, the United States. Only with a change in public opinion will Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese pluck up the courage to say to the UK government, “We request, in the most forceful manner, that you respect Julian Assange’s human and legal rights, the free speech rights that accrue to him as a journalist and publisher, and refuse to extradite him to the United States.”

I look forward to reading your next Opinion piece, Peter.

cheers

James

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WALKLEY’S BOARD - re Julian Assange

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WALKLEY’S BOARD

Dear Clare

On behalf of the Walkely’s Board you have registered a complaint with the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) regarding an incorrect statement I made in my open letter to Peter Greste:

"In response to James Ricketson's open letter
(https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/04/rick-j04.html) the WalkleyFoundation would like to clarify that the 2011 Walkley Award for
Outstanding Contribution to Journalism was awarded to Wikileaks, not to
Julian Assange individually, though the judges acknowledged Assange’s
role as editor in their remarks.It would be appreciated if this could be corrected. Many thanks, Clare Fletcher."

I stand corrected. However, Wikileaks is clearly Julian Assange’s ‘baby’. To distinguish between Assange as editor and Wikileaks’ “Outstanding Contribution to Journalism” strikes me as hair-splitting, especially so as he faces the very real possibility of dying in a US prison as a result of Wikileaks’ “outstanding contribution to journalism,” to quote a Statement released by the Walkley’s Board on 16^thApril 2019:

“In 2011, Wikileaks, with Julian Assange as its editor, received a Walkley Award in Australia for its outstanding contribution to journalism. Walkley judges said Wikileaks applied new technology to “penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup”. One of those many inconvenient truths was the exposure by video of US helicopter attacks in Baghdad that killed 11 civilians including two Reuters journalists…”

The Walkley Board clearly acknowledges that Assange/Wikileaks has played a significant and important journalistic role this past decade and more and is to be congratulated for doing so. However, such praise on the part of the Walkley Board is qualified by:

“Julian Assange’s personality and his more recent actions do not weaken the principle driving the Walkley Foundation’s concerns in this matter: that when he released the original Wikileaks material in 2010 Assange was assisting a whistleblower to reveal information in the public interest.”

I am curious to know why the Walkley Board feel the need to mention “Julian Assange’s personality” in this press release? In what way is his personality relevant to his role as Editor, Publisher or Journalist of Wikileaks? And what ‘recent actions’ of Assange’s are you referring to? 

A smear campaign, replete with innuendo, scuttlebutt and character assassination focusing on his ‘personality’,  has been waged against Assange within significant sections of the media over past 9 years. Perhaps inadvertently, this paragraph in the Walkley Statement adds weight to the argument  that Assange is somehow deserving of his ill treatment at the hands of the UK, US and Australian governments and not worthy of community support as an Australian citizen and award-winning journalist, editor and publisher.

I am happy to amend my original statement regarding the Walkley Award. I would appreciate it if the Walkley Board likewise amended its 16^thApril press release in such a way as to acknowledge that “Julian Assange’s personality” is irrelevant and to exclude references to ‘recent actions’ without specifying what these are and in what way they are relevant.

best wishes

James Ricketson

AN OPEN LETTER TO PETER GRESTE

Dear Peter, 

Do you still stand by your assertion, made in a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece last April, that Julian Assange  “is not a journalist, and WikiLeaks is not a news organisation”? 

Assange has been a member of MEAA for the past 10 years, was awarded a Walkley for the ‘Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism’ in 2011, amongst many other journalism awards. In November 2011 the UK Hight Court described Assange as “…a journalist, well known through his operation of Wikileaks” and the US Army’s Counterintelligence Centre described WikiLeaks as a ‘news organisation’ and Assange as a ‘writer’ and ‘journalist’.

Even if it is still your contention that Assange is not a journalist, do you believe, on the basis of evidence available to you, that Assange, an Australian citizen, should be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges?  

When I was imprisoned in Cambodia, also charged with espionage, you showed your compassion and used your influence as a journalist, who had likewise been charged with espionage and spent 400 days in an Egyptian prison, to alert the Australian public to my plight. You told Fran Kelly:

“You really can’t conceive of that length of time in prison until you actually have to confront it in all its stark reality… The Australian Government insists that it’s a defender of the basic democratic principles in the region, including the rule of law, due process, basic human rights. And if it wants to be taken seriously and with respect then it needs to forcefully stand by those values in cases like James’. I think the Government clearly needs to do more.”

You also said: 

“In Egypt’s case, Australia had very few levers that it could pull. It’s got far more levers…in Cambodia’s case – diplomatic levers, economic levers and so on.”

When I was found guilty of espionage you wrote on twitter:

“Australian film-maker James Ricketson sentenced to six years jail in Cambodia. Outrageous affront to due process, freedom of the press and the rule of law.”

Along with Phillip Adams, Elizabeth Farrelly, John Pilger, Piers Akerman and other journalists who wrote or broadcast in relation to my case, you played an important role in generating public support for me. This, in turn, placed pressure on the Australian government to use all the diplomatic tools available to it to extricate me from prison. The government did eventually step up to the plate and, behind the scenes, make significant diplomatic efforts to help me. Three weeks after I received a 6 year jail sentence I was on a plane back to Australia.

Do you believe that Citizen Julian Assange is any less deserving of intervention on the part of the Morrison government than I was?

Do you believe that the Australian government is doing enough to protect Citizen Julian Assange’s basic human rights?

Do you believe that, as an Australian citizen, he is deserving of a 175 year jail sentence for doing nothing more, on the basis of the evidence available to us all in July 2019, than what a good investigative journalist/publisher does all the time?

Julian Assange turns 48 today. He has been locked up in an Embassy for 7 years – five times longer than you were locked up in Egypt and I in Cambodia Cambodia. We have both experienced what you refer to as the ‘stark reality’ of incarceration. I would not wish the experience on anyone ,and particularly not on a fellow journalist.

Again, Peter, thank you for the journalistic help you provided me in my time of extreme need. Please do the same for Julian Assange –  as both an Australian citizen andas a journalist. Please join with the growing number of journalists worldwide who fear the ramifications, if Assange is extradited, for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the health of democracies such as Australia’s, at a time when President Donald Trump has declared we journalists to be enemies of the people.

cheers

James