The documentry about wikileaks

JULLIAN ASSANGE

30 November 2011, 19:20 GMT

The Guardian has continued its war on WikiLeaks with three new attacks over 48 hours—five days before Julian Assange’s final extradition appeal judgement in the High Court and a UK Parliamentary debate and vote on extradition abuses (both Monday, December 5).

While it is often counter-productive to divert resources to dealing with PR attacks head-on, we provide here a revealing window into the behind-the-scenes realities that WikiLeaks has to deal with every day as a result of its high profile. While many attacks come from "traditional" enemies — the organizations WikiLeaks has exposed — others come from opportunists trying to work an easy socio-political sector — apparently saying what they believe these powerful enemies would like to be said, in the hope of preferment or relief in other areas. Others still, in fear of their reputations or the legal process, seek to whitewash past opportunism before natural moral or legal redress.

It should be noted that while WikiLeaks has many supporters among Guardian journalists, the editor (Alan Rusbridger)’s brother in law, David Leigh, cannot in practice be prevented from abusing the Guardian’s resources and reputation.

• On November 29 2011: ’The Guardian Documentary’ WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies’ which aired yesterday at 10pm GMT
• On November 29 2011: The Guardian´s Nick Davies makes libelous statements to the official inquiry investigating the Phone Hacking scandal-about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
• On November 30 2011: junior Guardian employee and David Leigh assistant (James Ball) releases a hostile book about WikiLeaks

1. On November 29 2011: ’The Guardian Documentary’ - ’WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies’ More4

The documentary aired yesterday is known to film makers in the industry as "The Guardian Documentary":

• The director, Patrick Forbes, has admitted that chief Guardian antagonist David Leigh was a consultant for the film, and did "timetabling" and "fact checking". Leigh has been on a year long offensive against WikiLeaks in order to save himself from being sued over deliberately breaching every security condition of the Cablegate contract. In a letter to WikiLeaks Patrick Forbes stated that the audience would not be told of David Leigh’s role. The film avoids mentioning the contract or the ongoing legal dispute.
• The Guardian has been paid for participating in the film in an exclusive deal. WikiLeaks has not. In a letter to WikiLeaks Patrick Forbes stated that "These are matters [payment to the Guardian, Leigh’s production involvement] that are simply not relevant for the audience to know."
• The Guardian was given preview privileges for the documentary whereas WikiLeaks was refused such access to fact-check.
• The documentary interviews eight WikiLeaks critics-five from the Guardian, but only one person from WikiLeaks, and none from over 90 other organizations who have worked with WikiLeaks, with the exception of two brief interviews with Der Spiegel.

Content:

The documentary was presented to WikiLeaks as focusing on the WikiLeaks material, its impact, and Bradley Manning. WikiLeaks’ participation was premised on this being the case. The promo by contrast did not name Bradley Manning, and claimed to be ’The definitive account of the ’wiki-saga’, featuring the first major television interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The film unites all the major protagonists for the first time’. Julian Assange made a five-hour long interview. We were not given viewing privileges, despite requesting it. But the Guardian was. Luke Harding from the Guardian previewed it on 27 November 2011 and said on Twitter "Just watched new Channel 4 documentary on #Wikileaks. It’s lucid, engrossing and balanced. Recommend. via @C4Press", and James Ball from the Guardian tweeted that he had seen it on the 27th of November 2011.

WikiLeaks was misled as to the true purpose of the Guardian documentary. Contrary to its stated purpose, the documentary:

• Completely blacks out crucial facts, such as the fact that WikiLeaks suspended publications due to an unlawful arbitrary banking blockade that prevents donors from supporting the organisation. The banking blockade is not even mentioned, neither is the ongoing, documented in the public record, legal harassment of WikiLeaks volunteers by US authorities.
• In aggregate, the documentary features Julian Assange speaking for 8 minutes 50 seconds (including a 20 second silence on camera), whereas The Guardian’s five employees are given 29 minutes and 30 seconds. This does not include the time given to three other WikiLeaks critics. No WikiLeaks supporting interviews are aired.
• Contrary to what director Patrick Forbes told Julian Assange over the telephone, the film does not explain that David Leigh broke a written agreement and revealed a secret decryption key, which led to the publishing of the unredacted cables. Patrick Forbes said over telephone that the interview was made prior to the "fuss over the password". Instead, David Leigh holds up the paper, calls it a "souvenir" and reads it out to the camera.
• Gives Julian Assange no right to reply libelous statements such as "Afghan informers deserve to die". Nick Davies was not present at the conversation described, and John Goertz and Holger Stark from Der Spiegel can attest that they have no notes or recollection of Julian Assange saying this and would have recalled if he had claimed such a position.
• Completely obscures the fact that David Leigh was responsible for the publication of the unredacted cables, and says that this was an incomprehensible and reprehensible decision made by WikiLeaks.
• Does not disclose that David Leigh violated a written legal agreement between WikiLeaks and The Guardian that the material would not be passed to third parties (The New York Times), published before the publishing date, or be kept in an insecure manner. David Leigh has admitted that he deliberately went behind the editor (and his brother-in-law) Alan Rusbridger’s back to break the agreement, inorder to try to avoid liability for breach of contract, in a case study by Columbia University: http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...
• Nick Davies makes extraordinary allegations about Julian Assange. He says that he is untruthful but does not say with reference to what. He also makes extraordinary allegations about the Swedish investigation, suggesting that Julian Assange has lied - this in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, with reference to events in which Nick Davies was not present and does not explain. Julian Assange is unable to speak about the legal investigation against him. The allegations Davies refers to about US involvement are taken entirely out of context: Julian Assange was talking about the irregularities relating to the investigation in Sweden. David Leigh also makes tasteless comments about Mr. Assange, calling his sexual behaviour "incontinent".
• Is unethical and prejudicial to Julian Assange because it spends an inordinate amount of time on an ongoing criminal investigation without interviewing anyone with the authority to provide a background, explain or discuss the controversy in Sweden. From all the lawyers, prosecutors and experts involved in the case, from both sides, not a single one was interviewed. Instead, pathetically, the documentary shows a video of the accused dancing in Iceland while a journalist who was not there claims Julian Assange has been untruthful.
• Incorrectly describes Daniel Domscheit-Berg as WikiLeaks spokesperson. WikiLeaks’ representative is Mr. Kristinn Hrafnsson, who the director did not even request to interview. Domscheit-Berg was suspended in 2010, and was a volunteer assistant and sometimes spokesperson for WikiLeaks Germany, particularly during 2009. He was not, ever, as the documentary claims, a programmer.
• Daniel Domscheit-Berg is interviewed as a critic of WikiLeaks, but no attention is given to the role he has played in a) stealing funds, sabotaging the organisation b) deleting (according to his account) thousands of submissions revealing war crimes and corruption in finance institutions, profiteering and unleashing the chain of events that led to the publishing of the unredacted diplomatic cables.

Ten days before the documentary aired, and as a result of WikiLeaks receiving information from various friends in the industry that a ’Guardian documentary was being made’, Julian Assange phoned Patrick Forbes, the director of the documentary, to seek reassurances that this was not the case. The promo text falsely stated that Sweden was Julian Assange’s home country. Julian Assange was told that the promo text was a Channel 4 PR product, and that it was misleading. During the course of the conversation with Patrick Forbes and the correspondence that followed, it became clear that the documentary did not comply with the conditions that were set out by Patrick Forbes when WikiLeaks was approached. David Leigh promoted the documentary on Twitter on 18 November 2010 "Lies exposed? First major #Assange documentary to air on C4 this month is called "#Wikileaks: secrets and lies".

In a letter to Patrick Forbes written the day after the telephone conversation, Julian Assange writes:

"The collaboration offered to you, and the footage that arises from it, which we provided to you, and the interview between myself and you, was granted only under the terms you proffered, chiefly:

’We are setting out to make a definitive factual account of the WikiLeaks affair. It will focus on the core of the story, the substance, contact and impact of the Iraq, Afghan and diplomatic [c]ables, rather than the way in which the media and others have handled them, or any unrelated legal proceedings.... We are also closely following Manning’s treatment, his case and how it is being handled, assessing whether he is or will be able to have a fair trial or is being treated in a humane way during his confinement.’

It was on this basis that I agreed to entertain collaboration with your film project for free. This collaboration, taken at market rates, is worth between fifty [and] three hundred thousand pounds. However your promises as to what the documentary was to be about are at odds with the Channel 4 promotional description of the film. The natural reading of this, given the only partial correction of the statement, is that the Channel 4 summary is an accurate description of the film, and that you have deceptively described it to me and Sunshine Press Productions to gain our involvement and and access to me and to footage at below market rates.

In the pre-interview meeting with you and Tilly, for which we have second by second contemporaneous notes, you reconfirmed this statement, saying you were looking at the US assassination squad I discovered, Task Force 373, and were trying to locate its members, that the film would not cover Sweden, that the film was "more on the effect of publishing than on the production", and so on.

These promises are also at odds with the promo text issued by Channel 4."

Julian Assange suspended his collaboration and expressed his wish to not feature in the documentary given what he had learned from the phone conversation. The letter and the response are attached. Julian Assange writes: "during our telephone call yesterday, you made the following admissions:


a. That David Leigh, a reporter from the Guardian, was an made an adviser to the film, by you and that this fact was not disclosed to me. As you are aware this organisation, and myself personally, are locked into various disputes with Leigh, who, as you are aware, deliberately and secretly broke our Cablegate contract, and who, as you are aware, has engaged in a great many tawdry plots and libels in an attempt to destroy WikiLeaks.


b. That David Leigh and other hostile Guardian personalities, such as Nick Davies and Alan Rusbridger were paid monies, directly, or indirectly, by you, for their "involvement".

c. That these facts would not be revealed to the audience.

In making these statements, it is clear you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Namely, that either Leigh et al. were paid members of the production, in which case the the film has no credibility, or that you paid for their interviews through slight of hand, in which case you have engaged in chequebook journalism. A third possibility is that you funnelled production money to senior people in the Guardian hierarchy to maintain patronage. Regardless, to intentionally conceal these payments and associations from the audience is a disgrace. Additionally, David Leigh, James Ball, Alan Rusbridger, and other Guardian personalities are either selling or have sold libellous books, life rights or film options about me and/or WikiLeaks. Have these and other pecuniary interests and legal conflicts been detailed to the audience?

I note that despite the film revolving around my work, which now suffers an unlawful banking blockade by US financial companies, no payments were made to me, by you. This asymmetry, where the worst type of opportunists are paid, by you, and where the people who have actually taken most of the risks and done most of the work, are not, is striking.

As a result, until I can be assured that the film, and the Channel 4 promo, is accurate and meets terms under which my agreement and the agreement of Sunshine Press Productions was given, namely that, ""We are setting out to make a definitive factual account of the wikileaks affair. It will focus on the core of the story, the substance, contact and impact of the Iraq, Afghan and diplomatic [c]ables, rather than the way in which the media and others have handled them, or any unrelated legal proceedings.... We are also closely following Manning’s treatment, his case and how it is being handled, assessing whether he is or will be able to have a fair trial or is being treated in a humane way during his confinement." I must suspend all agreements."

2. On November 29 2011: At the Leveson inquiry which is investigating the phone hacking scandal, Nick Davies from The Guardian spoke to The Leveson inquiry about ethics and the media. He opportunistically used this platform to attack WikiLeaks with false, second-hand information about a conversation in which he was not present. He says Julian Assange said that Afghan informers deserved to die. Two other journalists who were present, John Goertz and Holger Stark from Der Spiegel, can attest that this is not what was said.

For reportage on what Nick Davies told the Leveson inquiry, see the transcript (http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp...)).

3. On November 30 2011: New Guardian book. David Leigh’s student and close friend (James Ball), was seconded to WikiLeaks from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for two months (Dec 2010, Jan 2011). He did not return to the Bureau, but rather, accepted a job assisting Leigh at the Guardian (offer made during Dec 2010). Leigh’s assistant will publish yet another book about our organization on Nov 30. After starting work for Leigh, the assistant has written numerous hostile, false, articles which often seem to directed at saving Leigh’s reputation.

Below:

• The original C4 documentary promo write-up, which differs from the one now online because: it does not mention Bradley Manning, and claims that Mr. Assange’s home country is Sweden.
• Excerpts from phone conversation between Julian Assange and Patrick Forbes, director of Channel 4’s documentary "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" (16 November 2011)
• Letter from Julian Assange to Patrick Forbes detailing complaints (17 November 2011)
• Response from Patrick Forbes to Julian Assange (18 November 2011)

• The original C4 documentary promo write-up

WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies

The definitive account of the ’wiki-saga’, featuring the first major television interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The film unites all the major protagonists for the first time, including Assange’s erstwhile partner Daniel Domscheit Berg, and the editorial teams at the Guardian, Der Spiegel and New York Times newspapers, as well as the US state department spokesperson who had to deal with the leaks. When Assange launched his whistle-blower website he was heralded as a hero, bravely publishing classified material to highlight government wrongdoings to its peoples.

He won awards around the world and was credited with creating a historic moment for journalism. But the story took a dark twist when Assange was accused of rape and sexual assault in his home country of Sweden. Award-winning film-maker Patrick Forbes presents the story of Wikileaks, using the words of people at the heart of the story, and on both sides of the fence.

This is the story of Wikieaks told by the people involved: sulphurous, personal and moving, it documents history in the making and the frontier of new technology and journalism. It’s also a story of human emotions clashing with the advent of new technologies, summed up in the words of Guardian journalist Nick Davies as ’a Greek tragedy... as triumph was turned into disaster through the actions of one man.’ True Stories commissions and showcases the best international feature documentaries.