4 ms·
Pretty poorly written as it focuses on US disclosures (rather than say, the disclosures of the Erdogan emails), and adopts a zero-sum Cold War-like calculus for
by jwtadvice 10y ago
Pretty poorly written as it focuses on US disclosures (rather than say, the disclosures of the Erdogan emails), and adopts a zero-sum Cold War-like calculus for "Russia's benefit".
US media outlets and political campaigns crying wolf (bear?) every time their reputations are damaged or to discredit their opponents (Clinton campaign wrt Trump) looks a lot like a modern form of McCarthyism.
You could equally expect RT or Sputnik to run a headline "How the US Often Benefits When Leaked Documents Reveal Russia's Secrets". Or, if you could point to specific instances: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/04/russia-says-putin-main-target-panama-papers/82600272/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/04/russia-s...
Indeed, the primary and most damaging leaks have been from US military whistleblowers - both Snowden and Manning documents - but also leaks from the former head of CIA (Patreus) betraying drone programs. Other leaks like the SONY leaks indicating the US State Department's active role in puppeteering "The Interview", while played down by US domestic media, was damaging to the normal and usually successful domestic propaganda narrative in the states.
The two leaks I can remember being attributed (possibly) to Russia include the DNC hacks, which disclosed huge election fraud and resulted in the retirement of the top five officials of the Democratic Party, and the leak (not published by Wikileaks) of the phone conversation by Victoria Nuland about supporting US-friendly political leadership transitions in the Ukraine (which the US media, again, covered as a scandal over swear words rather than content).
One of the interesting takes on the back and forth disclosure of corruption is that, in some sense, both Russian and US citizens 'win': they both gain access to transparency that their governments would otherwise prioritize their not having access to.
- paavokoya 10y agoOther leaks like the SONY leaks indicating the US State Department's active role in puppeteering "The Interview" Is there any source to this? I haven't found any in the leaks.
- jwtadvice 10y agoYes, in the email leaks it was disclosed that: - Michael Lynton (the CEO of SONY) had been in consultation with the State Department over The Interview, and had been giving the Bureau of Information Programs (one of the State Department propaganda bureaus) early screenings. - Lynton was in consultation with both State Department officials and a RAND expert on nuclear non-proliferation, North Korea and regime change (Bennett). - The Special Envoy to South Korea had been speaking with Executives of SONY about plans to have The Interview smuggled into the North. - Clinton staffers and CIA officials were on site during the production of The Interview. Indeed, the North Korean hacker group attributed by the FBI for the attack (Bureau 121) has a mandate to (and history of) target media companies partnering with adversary states to develop propaganda as a deterrence strategy. If you Google around for those names and themes you will stumble on articles from various reputable sources that cover it as well as original emails themselves in Wikileaks. It should be noted that the Wikileaks dump of SONY also implicated them in partnering with the US State Department in other business related to "international messaging", while "The Interview" was merelyl a high profile case.
- paavokoya 10y agoThanks! Had no idea.