Re the Guardian profile of Julian Assange, which I wrote about earlier today.

1. I'm sure the Guardian has profiled lots of assholes.

2. I'm also sure they don't make most the articles about what assholes they are.

3. How do they decide to make the story about what an asshole the person is?

My theory is that they do it if and only if other publications do.

And of course if Barack Obama were a huge asshole they wouldn't make the story about that. Or Mitch McConnell (who surely is as abrasive as any public figure ever profiled) because to do so would show bias. It would not be balanced.

That's how school kids decide who to bully, for example. If everyone makes someone their bitch, then it's okay for you to. So the Times runs a magazine profile about Assange's socks and other minutia, so the Guardian can find other scabs to pick at. Even if their readers might feel more than a little empathy for the guy.

I wonder if their profiles of the Royal Family include this kind of stuff?

Would they interview the Queen the way they interview Assange?

In British culture is that even considered a reasonable question?

Assange isn't a founder of Google. Doesn't control a huge budget. Isn't a military commander. He's broke and lives in exile in a closet. He can't really do anything to you. He certainly can't pull his ads! :-)

Kicking someone when they're down is considered poor style in the US. A sign of cowardice. How about in Britain?