Did 60 MInutes edit Assange's interview in a deceptive way?

[kitkat65]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JTBs1VpEUc

Someone else posted on the 60 minutes website pointing out that the interview was edited to make it look like Assange was responding to a question about hacking when he was really talking about programming.

At 2:50, Kroft asks Assange about his hacking past.

At 3:32, voice over by Kroft talking about Assange's hacking arrest in his 20s with past footage of a younger Assange, then cutting back to Assange talking, but we can't hear him because Kroft is still voicing over how Assange got off because the judge determined no harm had been done.

At 3:48, Kroft asks "Is that still one of your primary skills?" The inference is to hacking.

Assange's response: "Not really. Unfortunately I've been sort of promoted up into management so I don't get to do that so much but I know the terrain which means I know what is possible. For example, Bill Gates could program but he certainly doesn't program anymore but he knows what is possible for other people to do."

I have no conclusion either way. Without seeing the raw footage, who knows. Assange himself says it's an example and doesn't refer to himself as as a programmer but Kroft doesn't specifically ask about the skill of hacking, he just asks about a skill.

My overall impression of the interview was that it was antagonistic. Kroft followed the narrative that Assange is paranoid, secretive and wants to bring down America and the powerful, and it's somehow hypocritical of Wikileaks because it is also powerful. Kroft is also sure to add all the other criticism of Wikileaks we've heard from it's detractors. Is that a good thing because it gives Assange a platform to answer that criticism himself? Or has 60 Minutes — and the US media in general — become so useless that it won't even feign to defend publishing and the first amendment?

[emulatorloo]

1. Apparently there is a long form version on the CBS website

that some have said is quite good.

I'll go look for the link.

ON EDIT:

60 Minutes Overtime
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20029950-10391709.html?tag=component.0

Haven't watched it yet but plan to.

[wtmusic]

2. Kroft said the public's perception of Assange was he's paranoid

it wasn't stated as a personal opinion:

"Steve Kroft talks about how Assange is perceived by the U.S. public. Kroft: "Do you want me to give you my characterization of what I think people think?" Assange: "Sure." Kroft: "Mysterious, a little weird, a cult-like figure. A little paranoid." Assange: "Well, you're repeating all the ad hominem attacks by our critics." Clearly shows 60 Minutes negative bias towards Mr. Assange. Steve Kroft is not in the same league intelligence-wise. This is shown throughout the program."

Kroft is obviously biased, but to CBS's credit I don't believe anything was edited to incriminate Assange.

[Swede]

3. I feel more postive for Assange and wikileafs after this interview.

So,I think it was a good one.

[Gregorian]

7. I'm gleeful over here. Although Kroft doesn't speak for me.

Knowing a hundred thousand people have copies of the files they get makes me think this is something that will continue to be fruitful.

I am uncomfortable with how these interviews are tailored one way for one guest, and another for others. And that is another reason why I'm thrilled this morning. Because Julian handled that aspect brilliantly.

Yes. Now it's time to go get on my tractor with a cup of espresso, and enjoy the sun.

[grahamhgreen]

4. Of coooooooooourse. They are, afte all, the News.

[no limit]

5. Shouldn't we demand these networks release these interviews unedited on the web?

I would think that Assange would demand that before he sits down for any interview. Jon Stewart does this for any interview he does.

[Jim__]

6. I couldn't telll what the antecedent of "that" was.

There is considerable time and discussion between the reference to hacking and the question you reference. I watched to complete interviews at the site, and I could not tell what Kroft was referring to. It's possible that kroft had these questions written on a sheet of paper, or scrolling on a machine:

One of your skills is hacking.
Is that still one of your primary skills?

If the interview played that way, the reference would be clear. But, there is a lot of discussion between the statement and the question. At the very least, the reference should have been clarified.

[gateley]

8. I thought Kroft was blatantly heavy-handed in presenting Assange

as The Enemy.

Assange was stellar, IMO. Never got ruffled, corrected the crap that Kroft was trying to charge, just presented the facts.

[librechik]

9. Can they seriously believe data avable to a couple hundred thoudand people can be called classified?

Our culture of secrecy is all wrong. Or at least it's labelled all wrong.