Not sure what your point is or if you even have one but I will try to make my point more clearly since you seem to have missed it.

The point was that Greenwaldt shows how the Guardian published an article accusing Assange of doing something potentially quite harmful which was actually done by the Guardian. Of course you would have had to follow my link and read it to know this, but I did not need to have already read the Vanity Fair article [I have now] to know that AA gets a lot of information about Assange from the Guardian. She says so above. This false accusation about Assange, which the Guardian published, was then picked up by many other news outlets. The affect is to de-legitimize and demonize Assange, something I "get the sense" that AA buys into. Because she has been getting a lot of information from the Guardian about Assange I thought she might be interested in what Greenwaldt reveals in his article. Otherwise she might have missed it. Greenwaldt makes his case quite clearly. If you read him you might like what he says, or hate it, or something in between, but I expect that you will believe what he documents.

Hey Sleepin'. I guess I've been disturbed by the Assange thing because the very people who should be excited about this new development - one which I regard as huge - have instead fallen face-first into the personal stuff. The substance of the leaks, the historic nature of what's changed - these things have faded back into the wallpaper.

I mean, Sarah Ellison is SUPPOSED to be a "serious" reporter, right? She was at the WSJ for 10 years, knows a lot about Murdoch and his machinations, and now - this big piece on The Guardian and Wikileaks.

But take just this little paragraph. And read it knowing that the media has turned over the fact of his rape charges, and the condom breaking, about 1001 times. Watch what she does with it:

The Guardian, like other media outlets, would come to see Assange as someone to be handled with kid gloves, or perhaps latex ones—too alluring to ignore, too tainted to unequivocally embrace. Assange would come to see the mainstream media as a tool to be used and discarded, and at all times treated with suspicion. 

Ever so cute, eh? Latex. Alluring. Tainted. Used and discarded. etc.

This reporter is just another empty-headed ass writing for the big American media machinery that just cannot seem to get enough of this sort of cellar-dwelling. 

I guess what really intrigues me, and what I see as historic - a shifting of the plates that underlay our society - is that Wikileaks shows us, in a big way, that we have a powerful new tool, and forum, for getting at the guts of what goes on with the great powers and towers of the age - the corporation and the government. Both state and market are terrified of this shit, and so they should be.

It's like the printing press hitting the church, and we're not even discussing it. I just read Steven Johnson's book on innovation, and he points out that the major use of the printing press in its early decades was... printing indulgences for the church. In other words, the powers of the age used it, and the printers had to accept it, because that's what made them money. But it fed an extreme overreach by the church, and more importantly, fuelled a backlash that eventually tore the old world in two.

But here, instead of discussing that, we're actually into whether or not Gutenberg had a drinking problem, and whether his relations with Cardinal Vickers are the best possible.

Anyhoo. Good to see you. And yes. Bradley's in jail, and Assange is under arrest, and nobody gives a shit. Welcome to the Working Week.