7 ms·

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is th

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wikileaks could be doing its own editing to redact sensitive irrelevant information, but then they're curating the content and are open to criticism regarding whether they're editing with a bias. I get it, I don't like that innocent people's information is out there. However, it's a hard choice that Wikileaks is making there in how to put the information out there. It's not as simple as running it through reporters, because you don't know if you can trust them. I don't think it's a political mess, though. You only really hear that when the information casts the "liberals" in a bad light. It's a lot easier to rip Wikileaks when it's a matter of national security, but in this case, it's fairly evident we had a biased primary and the media was complicit in that.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Clubber 10y ago
So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.
- johnmarius 10y ago
  That's the things seen and unseen fallacy. Suppose some parts were buried, you wouldn't know of them.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Because the DNC leaks implicated a lot of reporters who Wikileaks would have to work with to get this story out.
  - HelloMcFly 10y ago
    Even if we generously interpret the "whole lot of reporters", the implication here is that they were left with no reporters to work with. That's absurd. There are many, many reporters, and even many credible reporters. It would not have been difficult to find non-implicated reporters that could deliver this with an impact. You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      I agree with this. There is no vast media conspiracy. If nothing else, Fox would be all over it, as would the tabloid (most of these days) media. There's no honor among thieves.
      - bsbechtel 10y ago
        I'm not sure an organization as biased as Fox News would improve the credibility of the leaks by any measurable amount.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  You don't give the enemy a heads up. The fact the media is now an enemy is a nightmare in and of itself.
- SmellTheGlove 10y ago
  Think about it like a data project at a company (because that's my job, heh). There's this weird, but accurate, assumption that the first to report something is assumed true, and anything that comes later either has to conform to that or is presumed to be wildly inaccurate. It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears. Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    The media is spinning it and reporting it now. I'm fine with the release, I'm not fine with essentially doxxing all the donors. Also, Assange is currently putting his own spin on it implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
    - busterarm 10y ago
      > implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. The DNC staffer that died _was murdered_. That's exactly what happened. I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy. A $20k reward might clear the air either way.
      - Clubber 10y ago
        >I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy. Yes, thanks for correcting that.
zzalpha 10y ago
A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. It doesn't work like that. In the past WikiLeaks worked with the media on redaction. Its not like they just handed over the material and stepped away powerless. And they always had the fallback of posting unredacted materials if they felt the media was biased. The refusal to redact is plain and simply philosophical.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- leephillips 10y ago
  Also, their former media partners, the NYT and the Guardian, won't work with them any more because of Assange's irresponsible and sociopathic behavior.
dmschulman 10y ago
That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done. The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and personal, not an exercise in transparency. The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  > The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government? Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue. Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political party to try to influence who that party nominates as its candidate. It's an organization. Sanders could have run for president as a socialist and nothing was stopping him from doing so.
    - harshreality 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?
aljones 10y ago
"the media" is a bunch of individuals, many of which are not as you describe. They could find trustworthy and thorough reporters to work with if they wanted to. They did before.
- jazzyk 10y ago
  There are trustworthy reporters, the challenge is to find trustworthy reporters who will be heard by the masses. As much as I like The Intercept, for example, they do not have the same reach as the WSJ or the NYT.
evilDagmar 10y ago
You both appear to be forgetting something much more important. Information was passed to trusted reporters because they were the only ones who had access and the ability to publish in a newspaper so that many people could be informed at once. This is no longer exclusively the purview of newspaper/television reporters.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I'm disappointed by the failure to work with some of the really good reporters, simply because they're good at what they do. But it's hard to argue that circumventing mainstream news is somehow inherently wrong at this point. If someone pressed Assange on this matter, I imagine he'd point out that he has more experience examining and organizing major leaks than almost any reporter. And, further, that he trusts himself more than he trusts the objectivity of reporters. Now, I can disagree on those claims, and I think I do, but there's no particular reason an experienced data-handler is inherently wrong for not using reporters.
- SmellTheGlove 10y ago
  That's a really good point. And to think, I grew up pre-Internet, and have forgotten all about that!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Clubber 10y ago

So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.

johnmarius 10y ago
That's the things seen and unseen fallacy. Suppose some parts were buried, you wouldn't know of them.
bsbechtel 10y ago
Because the DNC leaks implicated a lot of reporters who Wikileaks would have to work with to get this story out.
- HelloMcFly 10y ago
  Even if we generously interpret the "whole lot of reporters", the implication here is that they were left with no reporters to work with. That's absurd. There are many, many reporters, and even many credible reporters. It would not have been difficult to find non-implicated reporters that could deliver this with an impact. You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    I agree with this. There is no vast media conspiracy. If nothing else, Fox would be all over it, as would the tabloid (most of these days) media. There's no honor among thieves.
    - bsbechtel 10y ago
      I'm not sure an organization as biased as Fox News would improve the credibility of the leaks by any measurable amount.
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
You don't give the enemy a heads up. The fact the media is now an enemy is a nightmare in and of itself.
SmellTheGlove 10y ago
Think about it like a data project at a company (because that's my job, heh). There's this weird, but accurate, assumption that the first to report something is assumed true, and anything that comes later either has to conform to that or is presumed to be wildly inaccurate. It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears. Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.
- Clubber 10y ago
  The media is spinning it and reporting it now. I'm fine with the release, I'm not fine with essentially doxxing all the donors. Also, Assange is currently putting his own spin on it implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
  - busterarm 10y ago
    > implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. The DNC staffer that died _was murdered_. That's exactly what happened. I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy. A $20k reward might clear the air either way.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      >I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy. Yes, thanks for correcting that.

zzalpha 10y ago

A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. It doesn't work like that. In the past WikiLeaks worked with the media on redaction. Its not like they just handed over the material and stepped away powerless. And they always had the fallback of posting unredacted materials if they felt the media was biased. The refusal to redact is plain and simply philosophical.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
leephillips 10y ago
Also, their former media partners, the NYT and the Guardian, won't work with them any more because of Assange's irresponsible and sociopathic behavior.

dmschulman 10y ago

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done. The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and personal, not an exercise in transparency. The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?

Bartweiss 10y ago
> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government? Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue. Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political party to try to influence who that party nominates as its candidate. It's an organization. Sanders could have run for president as a socialist and nothing was stopping him from doing so.
  - harshreality 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?

aljones 10y ago

"the media" is a bunch of individuals, many of which are not as you describe. They could find trustworthy and thorough reporters to work with if they wanted to. They did before.

jazzyk 10y ago
There are trustworthy reporters, the challenge is to find trustworthy reporters who will be heard by the masses. As much as I like The Intercept, for example, they do not have the same reach as the WSJ or the NYT.

evilDagmar 10y ago

You both appear to be forgetting something much more important. Information was passed to trusted reporters because they were the only ones who had access and the ability to publish in a newspaper so that many people could be informed at once. This is no longer exclusively the purview of newspaper/television reporters.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I'm disappointed by the failure to work with some of the really good reporters, simply because they're good at what they do. But it's hard to argue that circumventing mainstream news is somehow inherently wrong at this point. If someone pressed Assange on this matter, I imagine he'd point out that he has more experience examining and organizing major leaks than almost any reporter. And, further, that he trusts himself more than he trusts the objectivity of reporters. Now, I can disagree on those claims, and I think I do, but there's no particular reason an experienced data-handler is inherently wrong for not using reporters.
SmellTheGlove 10y ago
That's a really good point. And to think, I grew up pre-Internet, and have forgotten all about that!