gregg on CNN

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. Mythic Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    She was REALLY annoying.
  2. RedOrbifold Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Good job keeping your cool, I'm impressed.

    It's so easy for news agencies to villify us, good job keeping the whole "cohesive group of people with no leaders" thing straight with them.
  3. conatus Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Knowing that this was just one of many of Gregg's similar experiences through the day . . . .wow. Way to step up to the plate.
  4. Tofuman666 Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    What's with the lady's loud tone of voice?
  5. DeathHamster Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Her brain has a Caps Lock key.
  6. Rockyj Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    My tribute to Gregg & just to piss everyone off!
  7. iaxiloll Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    It isn't a tone it is a shriek, it amazes me that she managed to choose this profession with a voice like that, let alone get air time. She has strong OSA tendenseeez as well.
  8. gregg Member

    Re: gregg on CNN


    Thanks everybody. It has been a wild ride this week.

    There is a lot more to come it seems. Much bigger shows are talking to me now about next week. We will see what happens.

    Its nice to see that people actually think I did a decent job.

    When CNN International tells you that your on a show that reaches 270 million homes, its easy to get a bit nervous. Its a really weird feeling to describe, but it seems to leave me right when the questions start.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    You did good mate. You were a bit hersitant at times, but she was giving you a tough ride. Good on you for clarifying the inb4leaderfag thing. You should watch this. He did good.

    Either way, I tip my hat to you sir.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Yes the interview was very tone 40. Strong tone 40 ? well she had intention/confront.
  11. whosit Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Gregg - first off, good job.

    Secondly - she was shrill as hell while she was interviewing you.

    For the last point - ignoring the drama going on with Julian - I think that Wikileaks might be taken out of context right now because of "the how" they are handling the leaks. It is a drip drip drip approach. Especially with as many dox as they have it will continue for years at this rate. Why don't they drop the bunch, highlight the important shit and clean things up? I only say this because the way it is starting to be framed in multiple media is that this is designed to just screw with the US for years.

    I don't think that you are the proper person to address this. Just throwing this idea out there for anyone to consider.
  12. iaxiloll Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Did your pants get tight when you heard the reporters voice and aggressive approach, or did you think, I must focus and I does not afraid of anything?
  13. rof Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Pantsy-clench is a weird bitch.

    What market segment does she appeal to, internationally?
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Post-menopausal spinsters will identify with her, and people with a mommy-don't-me complex will thing they've finally made it home again.

  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    mommy-don't-hurt-me complex
  16. EyeOnSci Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Excellent job, Gregg. You made international television look easy.
  17. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    (I know you weren't criticising Gregg, but...) I took what tiny bit of hesitancy I saw to be perhaps time delays between when we heard her ask the question and when he did? You could see him nod. I thought it was excellent, especially in light of the way she was drilling and interrupting him.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    There was a delay which he said was maddening as were the lights in the closet he was in in a studio hundreds of miles away but I thought he pulled it of as best he could.
  19. Re: gregg on CNN

    Julian Assange has already publicly addressed the specific issue of the schedule for the leaking of the quarter million cables and why they would be dribbled. Per Assange, the dox will be dribbled out through early 2011 (I don't recall the exact wording) to provide ample time for the press and public to digest the Great Relevance of His Supreme Gift to Society.

    Any adjustments to Assange's public comments should be communicated by the acting spokesperson for Wikileaks, Krisstjjnn Hrfffffjjjjjssnnnna of Iceland. Gregg could of course relay Wikileaks formal statements so long as he was clear the messages did not originate with him. IMO.
  20. whosit Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Sorry, I missed the memo.

    Oh thank some non-supreme being that I not know. Why was it decided to do it this way? Never mind - spilled milk and all. Why are they still being douches? Never mind - I'm not involved. Should be amusing. Especially after some kind of "insurance" file is dropped just because someone gets arrested.

    It is either going to contain new information that should have been leaked or old information that is going to get people killed.

    Either way the fanboys will think Julian is a hero. PR will be abundant.
  21. TinyDancer Member

    Her body language is extraordinary. It's worth watching again without sound.

    Because when there are lots of big stories involved, if you dump them all at once then big stories will be buried in the avalanche. If you let them come out in manageable segments, the news media and commentariat have time do their own analysis and research and the politicians are required to respond to them because the world's media is still giving them coverage.
  22. whosit Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    And who get's to decide what is manageable?
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    The Apostrophe Squad!
  24. whosit Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

  25. iaxiloll Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Mirrored for moar lulz!!

  26. whosit Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Her entire interview is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    A transcript of Greg Housh explains the ideology of the group, "Anonymous" is available online at the link below:
    LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.


    December 9, 2010 Thursday

    BECKY ANDERSON: Now, the hackers group, Anonymous, obviously likes to stay undercover.

    But our next guest says that he has been associated with them for years. He says he speaks for the organization and shares their views.

    Gregg Housh is the administrator of a Web site which is called Why We Protest.

    And he joins us now live from Boston.

    Prepare to show your face, Gregg.

    You say, then, you speak for Anonymous. We can't verify that, so talk me through it.

    GREGG HOUSH: I have never said that I spoke for Anonymous. That -- that is something pretty bad to say in the eyes of Anonymous. Simply by being here in front of you, I'm not anonymous. You know, here's my name, here's my face.

    ANDERSON: Right. OK, forgive me for that...

    HOUSH: You know...

    ANDERSON: But I thought when you spoke to my producer earlier on, that you'd said that you felt that you could speak for Anonymous.

    Am I not right?

    HOUSH: I can speak for what's going on. I'm sitting there on all the chat -- channels. I'm on all the Web sites. I've been involved in past Anonymous actions such as the attacks on the Church of Scientology. But I personally am not taking part in any of the illegal activities. I just am trusted but a lot of these people and I'm around all their inner circle.

    ANDERSON: OK. So you're not complicit in what's going on at present, but you're aware of how things work. Tell us in your own words then what these guys are trying to achieve.

    HOUSH: You know, everyone on there, being that there's so many people from so many different countries, have their own ideas. But it all revolves around the idea that information is free. And one of the big goals here is, you know, we -- we live in a free society, where the press has certain freedoms, journalists have certain freedoms. And from this side of the fence, it looks like WikiLeaks really is, you know, working as a journalistic organization. They -- they are working with "The Guardian" and all these other already existing journalistic organizations to do what they're doing.

    So we believe they deserve those same protections.

    ANDERSON: Right.

    HOUSH: And we find it very interesting that all these organizations are, you know, canceling their accounts or denying, you know, charges, like Visa, MasterCard, PayPal...

    ANDERSON: How...

    HOUSH: And listing off very clearly...

    ANDERSON: Sorry, let me just...

    HOUSH: Yes?

    ANDERSON: -- stop you there.

    How, though, do the ends effectively...

    HOUSH: No problem.

    ANDERSON: -- justify the means?

    How do -- the means being disrupting me and millions of our viewers from using a -- facilities like MasterCard, Visa, Amazon, which, let's be honest, and face it, they weren't able to bring down today, just before Christmas, for example?

    How do they -- how do the ends justify the means, do you think?

    HOUSH: This is a very tough balance to keep here. And, you know, I'm smiling because I've been asked this question a few times today. And it always leads to the fact that we really don't want to, you know, anyone on this site, be it the people doing all the legal activities like the mirroring and all that type stuff all the way to the people doing the DDoS and everything, we don't want to interrupt the public's, you know, livelihood.

    ANDERSON: But you are.

    HOUSH: We do want to interfere with their actions online, because, in the end, we want them on our side.

    Some -- some people have been affected but in all honesty, even when Visa's Web site was down completely. You don't go to Visa's Web site to use your credit card. And their Web site had nothing to do with their payment processing...

    ANDERSON: There weren't enough...

    HOUSH: -- which was working perfectly fine.

    ANDERSON: There weren't enough hackers today to bring down the Amazon site. My sense is we're talking about, you know, a couple of thousand people, 1,500 people around the world and we're giving you well, then, the oxygen of publicity, of course, tonight. The -- there could be more...

    HOUSH: Yes.

    ANDERSON: -- by the time this story is over. And I -- I hope, you know, that we're not complicit in -- in what -- in what they're doing.

    But there are -- you know, 1,500 doesn't sound like a lot of people to me. And they certainly weren't able to hit the Amazon site.

    So what should we expect next?

    HOUSH: Well, the Amazon site didn't go down, you are absolutely correct. But the numbers are a little short. You know, as of me leaving the heads of the studio here, there were over 30,000 people sitting in the -- the chat channels that are doing this. So it's still growing.

    And, you know, the complicit line you used there, that -- that's a bit tough, because one of the reasons the DDoSes are so effective is not necessarily that sites go down but that every time these DDoSes happen, people like me and people like you end up talking about it.

    ANDERSON: Yes, talk to me about...

    HOUSH: So they're going to keep doing it...

    ANDERSON: -- DDoSes because...

    HOUSH: -- because it keeps generating the press.

    ANDERSON: Remind our viewers what DDoSSes (ph) are. These are DIY online tools, of course.

    HOUSH: Right. It's a DDoS. So they've got a tool that you basically, for the first time in the history of these types of tools, can volunteer your computer to join. You know, in the past, people had to go out there and actually be hackers. They had to be the bad guys. An infector machine with viruses, Trojans, these types of things, to build their botnets.

    This time, the public is joining the botnet of their free will and giving up their computers and possibly with the knowledge that this is, you know, an illegal activity and they're still joining.

    ANDERSON: Hmmm. They're probably seeing...

    HOUSH: And a lot of that has to do...

    ANDERSON: -- a couple of thousand...

    HOUSH: -- with the press coverage that's been going on.

    ANDERSON: Let me ask you this...

    HOUSH: Yes?

    ANDERSON: The fact that in recent months, some of Assange's closest associates are rumored to have deserted him. They called him autocratic. They called him capricious. They've accused him of reneging on a -- on a promise of impartiality when he's gone after the states specifically.

    Doesn't that make you and -- and those you've been observing conducting themselves in this way just feel slightly uncomfortable that many of -- many of Assange's closest associates are reportedly pulling back from him, they don't agree with what he's doing?

    HOUSH: It does. There are people on this site that feel uncomfortable about that. But then there's the rest of us, who know that, you know, while Assange was one of the founders of WikiLeaks and he had a lot to do with, you know, what's gone on here, even with him behind bars, even if he were to disappear tomorrow, it wouldn't change anything. WikiLeaks would still be running. All the leaks would still be coming out. You know, the financial information that they plan on putting out in a couple of months is still going to come out, whether he is there or not.

    So, you know, Assange isn't WikiLeaks. He is a -- a good spokesperson, in our eyes. And maybe not in those people that you mentioned eyes, but, you know, to us, he -- he seems like a pretty good spokesperson for it.

    ANDERSON: Right. OK.

    So how long does this go on?

    HOUSH: And...

    ANDERSON: Let me ask you this.

    How long does this go on?

    Because he's behind bars at the moment. They're looking to extradite him to Sweden.

    So even if he were to get off -- out of the case that they seem to be building against him in Sweden, does this now continue?

    How long does this go on?

    HOUSH: You know, in all honesty, everyone on the site has no idea. They want it to continue going until they've won. What -- whatever that means...

    ANDERSON: But what's winning?

    HOUSH: -- I mean that -- that's a lofty goal...

    ANDERSON: Yes, what...

    HOUSH: -- you know, freedom of information.

    ANDERSON: That was my question, what -- what's winning at this point?

    HOUSH: Well, I -- I would say the one conversation that I witnessed today that really, you know, kind of put things into perspective for me was people talking about how interesting, here we have all these cables and all these other things that have been leaked over the last, you know, four years of WikiLeaks, a lot of them being evidence of crimes. You know, I won't speak to specific ones, but, you know, you can find them all online in the cables.

    And they are all being ignored. All the various crimes that here's proof, logged, right here, you know, here's what happened, here's the name, here's even the dollar value of what was in that briefcase that this guy took. You know, all of this is sitting there and instead of focusing on the people who we know have committed crimes, they're going after Julian and WikiLeaks -- you know, ignoring the Sweden case for just a moment -- you know, over here in America, they're going after him, trying to find any law they can charge him with. And they still haven't found one yet.

    ANDERSON: Right.

    HOUSH: And yet the person who, right now, we don't believe has broken a law is sitting over here being prosecuted while all these people who have broken many laws that we have proof of are being ignored...

    ANDERSON: But you...

    HOUSH: -- that's really bothering people on the site.

    ANDERSON: Right. Let me just say put this to you again, that you -- you can't answer the question, how long this goes on or what happens next, at this point, can you -- or even what the real point is?

    HOUSH: In all honesty, no. I mean this is so new. This hasn't happened before. No -- no one has been through this. So we don't know where it ends...

    ANDERSON: All right.

    HOUSH: -- I -- I will say one thing, that, you know, the targets that keep presenting themselves by acting against WikiLeaks or acting against, you know, freedom of information, as long as they keep, you know, just stepping right up and raising their hand and saying that, you know, here I am, I'm on the other side, there will probably be attacks.

    ANDERSON: Interesting. We're going to leave it there.

    We thank you very much, indeed, for joining us this evening.
  28. RedOrbifold Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    looking at the transcript, you say "you know" a lot.

    I understand it's impossible to change one's inflections and mannerisms overnight, but maybe it would be a good idea to try to cut back?
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    His eye movement looking like his is looking at things as a whole, while her directness appears to be of someone trying to get the the bottom of it. At the end CNN did a great at picking someone to interview. In comparison did you see the RT interview, it sounded like RT was being trolled by someone that seemed to have an agenda RT would like to push for their comrades.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Very impressed by your performance Gregg. That was a tough interview and you handled it very well. Also you look like a normal person, not a basement-dwelling geek or crazed cyberterrorist teenager and on tv, appearance is half the battle.
  31. mojo Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    too bad they don't treat some of the liars from these cables with the same degree of scrutiny...
  32. TinyDancer Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Whoever is releasing info decides what they think is manageable. Happens all the time.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    That was good.
  34. gregg Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    For some reason it actually is easier for me when they are combative. They seem to make idiotic counter points that are pretty easy to shoot down. Whether thats on purpose or not who knows. But so far the ones like this CNN interview are actually the easiest for me.

    And again, thanks everyone for the kind words.

    This next week I will either disappear from all this because no one cares anymore, or I will end up on much bigger shows. I am talking to a few of them on monday to see if any show ideas might work for them. The shows dont want to be talked about, so I wont be able to name them until next week sometime. But way bigger than anything I have done yet.
  35. Re: gregg on CNN

    I thought the reporter's body language was kinda funny. It seemed kind of like a "I don't understand and I don't like it, so I'm going to try to take the most confrontational looking stance I can."
    Her approach about how this affects "her" as an average citizen who is not involved was understandable and I think it was good to clarify that the targets were not the functional aspects of the payment processes. She clearly doesn't understand the difference - like most people, unfortunately.
    There are still a whole lot of people who lack an understanding of technology - add to that the surprisingly difficult to grasp concept of anonymous, and I can definitely understand how this could be upsetting to some people. So far my favorite analogy of anonymous has been thunderfoot's starlings, but then, that is a phenomenon that is just as difficult to explain.
    I LOL'd at the end of the interview when she seemed almost triumphant lke "HA! Not even YOU know what these guys are going to do next! Yay, it's okay that I'm confused cuz, uh, you guys are too? Right?"

    I like that Gregg comes across as a sincere, understanding and approachable individual. She really was trying to be antagonistic and I think he handled it with a level head. He is definitely getting better with practice.

    Has it been all the practicing with bullbaiting scilons that has had this effect on you? I'm sure watching TD footbullet has been a good lesson in "what not to do in an interview" as well.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Yes I have no idea what wall my 4 yo son is going crayon up each morning either.
  37. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    I think that's a good assessment. What I just don't get about the reaction by the US government and assorted folks is that they should be concerned with damage control, but in the environment they are currently operating in they are just making it worse by raising the pressure. It creates averse reactions, an increase in activity against them and it doesn't even achieve the immediate goal of stopping the leaks. If this is supposed to be damage control, it isn't very effective, right?
  38. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    New drinking game: Every time gregg says "you know"
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

  40. Anonymous Member

    Re: gregg on CNN

    Story idea: Parallels between Julian Assange and Lisbeth Salander - FTW.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins