Sure makes me think ANYTHING is possible.

I have long admired the professionalism and accuracy of Reuters reports – until now. The entire content of this article – which is based on a mix of personal speculation and the regurgitation of half-truths – is so short on facts. Shame on you and for lowering the standards of quality journalism at Reuters!

In case you have forgotten, Mr Lloyd, please take a good look again at this video of Reuters staff. Do you recall how the US military claimed that ALL the dead – including your two colleagues – were “insurgents”? Why did Reuters not uncover this story, may we ask? Would the truth behind the deaths of your colleagues have come to light without Julian Assange?

Collateral Murder – Wikileaks – Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3 G0

This next report, provides actual factual evidence that counters your entire argument, Mr Lloyd. Please note that this work is based on exposing the activities of the Chinese government which, based on your logic, should be a friend of Mr Assange. Clearly, the exposure of these particular cables is NOT on the scale of the leak of 400,000 classified Iraq war documents. However, during this past decade Mr Lloyd, has China been involved in any war that has resulted in the death of 100,000 – 110,000 civilians? Or does Reuters know something that we don’t on this matter? And is China involved in the longest war in US history: Afghanistan? Indeed, is China involved in any of the biggest wars of our times? Perhaps Reuters knows something that we don’t on these matters?

WikiLeaks, Chinese Soft Power & A Small Amazonian Country:
https://vimeo.com/44861089

Would you and Reuters kindly reflect on whether the “journalism” as expressed in this piece reflects well either on Reuters or on your own profession? The journalism created, to my mind, looks very much like, to use your words – “full of compromise” -and your entire argument is indeed the very opposite of what Assange and WikiLeaks stands for – to use your words again: “a handmaiden to power”.

Standard sloppy inaccuracy for corpohacks, I guess: facts can be treated with slipshod indifference as long as you toe the necessary lines-de-jure that your corporate owners prefer; and think the necessary right-thinking thoughts that they like, spontaneously, without censorship.

No wonder a new breed of independent genuine journalists, represented very well by JA, is appearing to supersede these useless, blinkered, over-paid, over-promoted, line-toeing, craven, shagged-out time-serving mediocrities.

This comment posted both on MediaLens Message Board and below the original LLoyd hatchet job — well wooden-spoon job really; too blunt and weak to amount to a hatchet.

He has not been charged. You have made a fundamental error of journalism here which should see you kicked out of the profession. You are not a professional, you are a spinner.

There’s a good L7 song which your article has triggered and set to repeat in my mind.