7 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'm not sure an organization as biased as Fox News would improve the credibility of the leaks by any measurable amount.