Anyone remember when Assange 'published' Steve Jobs medical file and said he might have HIV?

[nomb]

Just curious since the petulant little "alleged" rapist is now in a snit about his Autobiography being somehow a violation of his rights...


Here's a link to that memory from just before Assange' 15 minutes began:

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/229208058


Who do you think got fairer treatment, Assange and the book he co-wrote and contracted for, or Jobs?

[virgogal]

1. I don'r remember that. Disgraceful.

[Luminous Animal]

15. To bad it's untrue. The images were already in circulation. Wikileaks exposed them as fakes.

[nomb]

22. Not true and not how it was reported at the time Retractions came later after they found it was fake

WikiLeaks - Steve Jobs has the HIV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8TzmRsfW4



Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks:

http://www.techspere.com/weird-tech-news/steve-jobs-has-hiv-1-claims-wikileaks

[seabeyond]

23. wikileaks was the only one i heard say this. i googled and not a single site blamed others

all stated it was wikileaks who put it out. the only differing statement came from wiki.

[LAGC]

2. If I may don my tin-foil hat, It may have been a CIA op to try to discredit Wikileaks.

Whoever "leaked" the documents to Wikileaks in the first place. The idea being: if you can't shut Wikileaks up, overwhelm them with misinformation, to hurt their credibility.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

Or something like that.

[nomb]

4. It was from before he got lucky with the big-score. He was hustling then w/o pretense to scruples

[TorchTheWitch]

55. doesn't matter a wit who leaked them to Wikileaks

Wikileaks had no damn business revealing them to the public whether they bothered to authenticate them or not. If Wikileaks had a single ounce of integrity they would have immediately destroyed the documents leaked to them and never said a word about it. Publishing a private person's deeply personal medical records is not only despicable tabloid bullshit at it's most disgusting it serves ZERO purpose... the public has absolutely no need to know about or see a private person's medical records. It's the job of WIKILEAKS to not only authenticate documents they are given but to make the right decisions concerning what to publish and what not to publish. Wikileaks is ENTIRELY to blame for not only publishing the documents but also for not even bothering to authenticate them.

[nomb]

57. +++++++++++++++++ 10000000000000000000000000000

[ljm2002]

63. Please see post #16...

...your recounting of events is simply wrong. The documents had ALREADY been published. They were NOT originally published by Wikileaks, and in fact Wikileaks DEBUNKED the documents.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a satisfying 5-minute hatefest.

[seabeyond]

65. please see 59. the ireport i was told was in advance was a day AFTER

wiki adn that report referenced the medical reports.... released day prior.

[TorchTheWitch]

67. I was responding to the poster's hypothetical

The poster I responded to brought up a hypothetical of what might have occurred, and I responded to that hypothetical. In such an instance it's immaterial what the facts are as I was not responding to that.

However, knowing the facts as others here claim them to be there are two reasons Wikileaks should not have done what is claimed they did:

1) It's tabloid journalism that only serves to spread the FAKE story even more especially by including the fake documents and more importantly not being able to conclude whether they were real or not; and

2) Wikileaks was not in any position to comment on the authenticity of the documents one way or another since they didn't see the ACTUAL documents... that calls into question the integrity of how Wikileaks authenticates documents.

What Wikileaks did do according to you and others here is engage is tabloid journalism spreading a story even further and not only publishing the supposed fake documents but made a claim they were probably fake without being in any position to determine whether or not they were and leaving it up to the reader to decide whether or not they were. This was classic tabloid journalism Wikileaks engaged in and should not have touched with a ten foot pole.

[Luminous Animal]

69. They were reporting on already published records. ALREADY PUBLISHED. And they determined that they

were fake.

What part of already published do people no understand here. What part of doing due diligence to investigate ALREADY PUBLISHED images and determining that were suspect do not people understand?


CNN iReports hosted the images.

They were spread around the internet as the truth.

Wikileaks hosted the images for their members to analyze.

Their members determined that they were fake,

[sabrina 1]

72. You need to get some facts straight.

I've never seen anything like the distortions I see here sometimes regarding issues that are really not that difficult to GET the facts on.

[JVS]

75. One would be tempted to think it's intentional.

[seabeyond]

3. he wouldnt be such a hypocrite, surely. nt

[Luminous Animal]

16. Nope. He's not and neither is Wikileaks. They reported on images already in circulation

and exposed them as fakes. The German newspaper that originally reported that Wikileaks was the original publisher had to retract their story.

[nomb]

24. No, they published a private medical file. Period. "Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks"

WikiLeaks - Steve Jobs has the HIV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8TzmRsfW4



Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks:

http://www.techspere.com/weird-tech-news/steve-jobs-has-hiv-1-claims-wikileaks

[seabeyond]

25. this is what i found. repeated sites showing medical record and signatures

claiming validity in statement from wiki. i never heard of another site being responsible. cnn, germany or anyone else.

[Luminous Animal]

27. And Al Gore invented the internet.

Here is the a link to the earliest report of the images on CNN's iReport...

http://digg.com/news/story/Apple_Computers_CEO_Steve_Jobs_is_HIV_positive_iReport_com

[nomb]

29. Then why do all the contemporaneous news reports credit Wikileaks? Did Assange steal from CNN?

WikiLeaks - Steve Jobs has the HIV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8TzmRsfW4



Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks:

http://www.techspere.com/weird-tech-news/steve-jobs-has-hiv-1-claims-wikileaks

[seabeyond]

59. wiki reported medical info 15th. ireport story 16th claiming day before medical releases.

Apple Computers CEO Steve Jobs is HIV positive - iReport.com

ireport.com— Posted earlier today, a record from a medical testing company that has proof that Apple CEO Steven P. Jobs is HiV Positive Jan 16, 2009
http://digg.com/news/story/Apple_Computers_CEO_Steve_Jobs_is_HIV_positive_iReport_com


Steve Jobs purported HIV medical status results, 2008

Release date
January 15, 2009
http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008

_______________

how does that make ireport the first

[frazzled]

5. I sort of got stopped at the first sentence

"I have a great deal of respect for the journalistic principles that Wikileaks espouses." What journalistic principles? He may have principles, chaotic as they may be, but they're certainly not journalistic. Dumping tons of documents (which have been illegally obtained, but that's another story) onto a web site isn't journalism. It's posting, or something, but it's not journalism. Putting up acknowledged fake documents for no reason whatsoever is really not journalism.

Why do you think that the halfway reputable journalists at The Guardian and The New York Times washed their hands of him entirely?

[saras]

10. Halfway reputable journalists at the New York Times? Hahahahahaha!

Yep, file 'em with all those Tea Party patriots.

Sorry, but the Al Gore smears ended, for me, any sense whatsoever that the Times had anything left of its historic value - it's another tabloid at this point. They give it away free at the university I'm attending, and it seems to be used more for humor than for "news" - it's always good to get a laugh at the corporate spin on pretty much any event at all.

But I'd no more trust it than I'd trust News of the World.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

61. NYT: "Al Gore invented the Internet."

The New York Times lies with malice on occasion and distorts frequently. Why would you claim them to be half-way reputable? They've done many more terrible things than those ascribed to Assange on this thread. They are simply awful.

[sabrina 1]

73. They didn't, he washed his hands of them.

And for very good reason, at least as far as the Guardian goes.

[sabrina 1]

74. They didn't, he washed his hands of them.

And for very good reason, at least as far as the Guardian goes.

[ljm2002]

6. I did not see that story...

...but the first 4 paragraphs read:

"I have a great deal of respect for the journalistic principles that Wikileaks espouses, but the site has done itself and journalism a disservice: It has published images that purport to show part of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' medical file, one of which is acknowledged to be fake and the other of which is deemed suspect.The photos, one of which includes what looks to be Jobs' signature, purport to reveal that he's HIV positive.

The Wikileaks summary points to a variety of the problems with the photos, which have supposedly been circulating on the Internet and on CNN's iReport, the user-generated news site responsible for promoting a fake story about Jobs suffering a heart attack.

"Due to the contradictory dates, visual evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value," the summary concludes.

If that's the case, what possible reason does Wikileaks have for publishing them, particularly after acknowledging that the photos are probably an attempt to influence Apple's stock price?"

So while Wikileaks did publish the pictures (and the article you cite takes them to task for it), they did not try to pass them off as authentic. Yet your headline states "and said he might have HIV", which is really quite misleading. According to the article, Wikileaks published the images with disclaimers. The images made the claim; Wikileaks stated that the images were almost certainly forgeries. How does that translate to Assange saying Jobs might have HIV? Sorry -- you can fault their judgment for publishing the pictures at all, but I don't think you are showing your own judgment to be any better. Rather worse, in fact.

[nomb]

7. "The images made the claim, not Wikileaks" - sorry, he smeared Jobs. He's responsible for that.

[ljm2002]

8. And you are responsible for a misleading headline...

...in fact it's simply false: "when Assange...said he (Jobs) might have HIV"

No, that is not what happened. Again, you can fault Assange / Wikileaks for publishing the images, but your claim about what Assange allegedly said is false.

On edit:

I note taht you studiously ignored the point that Wikileaks CLEARLY STATED that the images were not to be taken at face value:

"Due to the contradictory dates, visual evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value," the summary concludes.

How does that translate into Assange making a claim about Jobs' HIV status?

Again: you can fault Assange / Wikileaks for publishing the images, but YOUR headline is CLEARLY FALSE.

[nomb]

13. That Assange said it with pictures still means that he said it. Assange said jobs might have HIV.

True.

[ljm2002]

17. There you go again...

...lying outright. "Assange said jobs might have HIV."

No, he did not. And I am finished with this conversation.

[Vinnie From Indy]

34. Bravo!

It is quite obvious that the OP is a smear attempt and a poor one at that. You are correct and the OP has been exposed as a laughable attempt at smearing Assange.

Cheers!

[Lyric]

43. Why is it a "smear" if someone wrongly says that you have HIV?

I'm sure it was an inconvenience for Mr. Jobs to have to set the record straight, but it wasn't a "smear". There's nothing morally wrong with having HIV. HIV is not an indicator of a personal ethical failure. It's just a virus, like any other virus.

If some idiot told everyone that I had the Ebola virus, I'd be annoyed at having to take the time out of my day to reassure my whole family that I was fine...but it wouldn't qualify as a "smear".

What makes HIV so different, that being falsely accused of having it is seen as a "smear" on someone's reputation?

[nomb]

49. I never meant smear, I contrasted this with Assange' cry for privacy over the book he himself wrote.

It's a privacy/hypocrisy issue.

[Luminous Animal]

19. They were already being published. Wikileaks did due diligence and exposed them as fakes.

[nomb]

21. That's not what was reported worldwide at the time before the German newspaper retracted the story

WikiLeaks - Steve Jobs has the HIV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8TzmRsfW4



Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks:

http://www.techspere.com/weird-tech-news/steve-jobs-has-hiv-1-claims-wikileaks

[Luminous Animal]

30. "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Just because DPA saw the images on Wikileaks first, does not mean that Wikileaks was first to publish. They analyzed the images ALREADY IN CIRCULATION and exposed them as fakes.

That is, they conducted journalism.

[nomb]

32. They printed his private medical file. The world gave Assange his credit - and then the excuses when

and then the excuses came when it blew up in his face.

[Luminous Animal]

35. It wasn't his private medical file and Wikileaks clearly stated that they believed

the images were fakes.

[nomb]

39. So Assange said after the story blew up in his face.

[Vinnie From Indy]

38. You appear to be the only one "blowing" actually.

Cheers!

[Bluenorthwest]

9. First I heard of it, so your job is done....

I am not a fan of Jobs, he's a big boy and he can afford to clear up any communications that bother him.
Who gets a fairer treatment, Jobs or the children he employs as near slaves to feed his i-mpire? That is the one and only meaningful question here.

[seabeyond]

11. wow.. someone really is justifying a smear campaign with someones private life

i love how flexible we are with our ethics....

[Warren Stupidity]

76. there was no smear campaign by wikileaks - they reported that the docs were fakes.

This is like blaming the few newspapers that published stories that called into question the validity of the bogus Iraq WMD claims for propagating those claims. The docs were already in circulation - by CNN among others - when Wikileaks published an article on their website claiming that the documents were fakes.

[Mimosa]

66. Blue, I never heard that one either.

I'd followed Wikileaks off and on since it first came online. Plus I'm a Mac user. That story about Jobs never seemed to have gained credence. Pretty much everyone knows Jobs had cancer, went into remission, then it seemed to come back.

But as others have said what if he did have HIV?

I think 'journalists' publishing people's personal medical records is unethical, however.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Are you going after CNN?

From your source:

"The Wikileaks summary points to a variety of the problems with the photos, which have supposedly been circulating on the Internet and on CNN's iReport, the user-generated news site responsible for promoting a fake story about Jobs suffering a heart attack."

Wikileaks was pointing out that this stuff - published elsewhere - was fake. This blogger and you seem to have gotten on the Bash Wikileaks Bandwagon, but in this case you've got less than nothing.

"what possible reason does Wikileaks have for publishing them"?

"The release was to make the public and media aware of the nature of these photographs, which had been circulated widely, possibly in an effort to spawn rumor over Steve Jobs health status in order to manipulate the Apple stock value. "

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Correction_of_DPA_article_in_respect_to_WikiLeaks_and_Steve_Jobs_HIV_test/index.html

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomb]

20. Not so. Assange published it and the WORLD took it as intended, retractions were later:

WikiLeaks - Steve Jobs has the HIV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8TzmRsfW4



Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks:

http://www.techspere.com/weird-tech-news/steve-jobs-has-hiv-1-claims-wikileaks

[Luminous Animal]

26. They were already published on CNN iReport

Digg still shows that CNN iReport published the images but it looks like iReport took them down..

http://digg.com/news/story/Apple_Computers_CEO_Steve_Jobs_is_HIV_positive_iReport_com

Apple Computers CEO Steve Jobs is HIV positive - iReport.com

ireport.com — Posted earlier today, a record from a medical testing company that has proof that Apple CEO Steven P. Jobs is HiV Positive Jan 16, 2009

[nomb]

28. Then why do all the contemporaneous news reports credit Wikileaks? Did Assange steal from CNN?

WikiLeaks - Steve Jobs has the HIV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8TzmRsfW4



Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks:

http://www.techspere.com/weird-tech-news/steve-jobs-has-hiv-1-claims-wikileaks

[Luminous Animal]

41. Why did nearly every newspapers in the U.S. publish that Saddam had weapons

of mass destruction?

[ljm2002]

31. So just to be clear...

...you assert that Assange claimed Jobs had HIV, based on these images.

Yet we can see that Wikileaks published the images with prominent disclaimers stating they were almost certainly NOT authentic.

A German news outlet claimed that Wikileaks were the original publishers of the images.

In the meantime, a couple of people took the images from Wikileaks, claimed (falsely) that the images showed Jobs had HIV. Note, neither of the links above had enough integrity to pass on the VERY CLEAR disclaimers from Wikileaks, rather, they just say "Here's some stuff from Wikileaks showing that Jobs has HIV".

The German news outlet retracted their claim that Wikileaks was the original publisher, which is good, since they were not, and they took pains to debunk the images.

And you are using this sequence of events to say that Assange / Wikileaks is the one making the claim about Jobs. You say this shows that Wikileaks intended the images to be misused in this manner. You say this is how the WORLD saw it, based on the two links you provide, both of whom clearly lack any integrity whatsoever since they failed to note the disclaimers on the Wikileaks site.

Lame, lame, lame.

[nomb]

37. Google: steve jobs hiv wikileaks and you get over two million hits. Why? Because Assange reported it

http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Apple+Computers+CEO+Steve+Jobs+is+HIV+positive+-+iReport.com#pq=steve+jobs+hiv+snopes&hl=en&sugexp=pfwc&cp=16&gs_id=5g&xhr=t&q=steve+jobs+hiv+wikileaks&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=steve+jobs+hiv+w&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4708e6a55752cfee&biw=977&bih=642

[Luminous Animal]

40. Well, no he didn't. Wikileaks reported that the images were fake.

[nomb]

45. Funny then that the world reported them as from Wikileaks and every detail - except that little one

[ljm2002]

46. And once again, you studiously avoid the facts...

...in order to promote your version of events.

What a surprise.

[nomb]

48. The facts are that every headline read: "Steve Jobs has HIV-1 Claims WikiLeaks"

[ljm2002]

54. So you're going with the argument...

...that lots of people picked up false information and ran with it, therefore it is the fault of the person who was falsely quoted?

The disclaimers were VERY clear. They weren't just HARD to miss, they were IMPOSSIBLE to miss. Wikileaks was responding to these images being published by others, WITHOUT the disclaimers. Therefore, the blame lies with those who chose to ignore the disclaimers when disseminating the images.

As another poster mentioned, lots and lots of media outlets published "facts" about Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Didn't make any of it true.

But you clearly have an agenda here, and being scrupulously honest is not part of it.

[nomb]

56. Everyone said the same thing. Only wikileaks now claims that they were misunderstood?

[ljm2002]

62. Wikileaks is not making any claims here...

...you have dredged up a years-old situation, and others on DU have responded with facts about the situation (many of them gleaned directly from the article you originally cited) that belie your thread title.

Yet you continue to make demonstrably false claims, using the fact that "Everyone said it!" as a backup, and dismissing facts that are inconvenient for your narrative.

All I can say is, you either need a logic class, or a conscience check.

[Luminous Animal]

71. Only now? They challenged when it happened in 2009. Their press release is dated 2009. Only now?

Are you purposefully lying?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

18. Oh my God. I had no idea about this

They owe Jobs much more than just an apology.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

42. I don't wear pearls.

But thanks for your concern and your admitting to having "visuals" about me for some reason.

[Bluebear]

44. No I don't recall but carry on with your agenda

[nomb]

47. Is it that obvious that I have some issues with the "alleged" rapist, Assange? :)

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomb]

51. "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen." - Motto of 'The Aspen Times'

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomb]

53. The headlines are there, the taking to task of wikileaks - and then the retractions and excuses.

[Luminous Animal]

70. And the headlines were there that Saddam had WMD. Google? 3,450,000 results

[ljm2002]

64. Yes. n/t

[BlueIris]

58. Assange is a cowardly poser.

I loathe and despise this man and the things he has done.

[nomb]

60. If Pvt Manning had'nt given his life to Assange, Assange would still be flogging Celeb-dirt.

[EFerrari]

68. FAIL for not knowing anything about Wikileaks before Cablegate.

And WIN the Missing the Bigger Picture Award for the year. Enjoy.

[sabrina 1]

77. Wow, you really know nothing at all about Wikileaks, do you?

Long before they ever got those leaks from the US, Wikileaks was a prize-winning news media.

I never realized just how isolated people in this country are from what is going on the world.

However, considering how little you know, it might be best if you didn't pretend that you do, it makes this board look bad, frankly.