> His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information
I don't know anything about his other works, but AFAIK he was the only one reporting what was going on in detail during Assange's trial. I respect him for that.
I read criticism similar to yours before, but I can't shake a simple question: if there are better reporters out there, where were they during the trial?
The simple answer is that what Craig Murray was reporting about Assange was massively overblown conspiracies about every single element of the trial. The reason other reporters weren't covering to the same level of detail because "Trial continues as expected" isn't news-and there are plenty of examples of this. In the mainstream news the big revelation that someone just tangentially related to the Assange extradition hearing had come out as a liar was covered, but in the context of it not really being core to the case. In Murray's coverage you would be mislead to believe that that person was some star witness.
I don't know anything about his other works, but AFAIK he was the only one reporting what was going on in detail during Assange's trial. I respect him for that.
I read criticism similar to yours before, but I can't shake a simple question: if there are better reporters out there, where were they during the trial?