5 ms·
He may be in need of attention but his organisation performs a task that is - sadly - critical to our democracy. They have leaked information that mass media wo
by flexie 10y ago
He may be in need of attention but his organisation performs a task that is - sadly - critical to our democracy. They have leaked information that mass media would otherwise not have been anywhere close to exposing.
I too doubt that they have anything that significant for the election but I will give them the benefit of the doubt based on their prior important work. I also understand that they release information bit by bit. If it was released all at once, mass media would not have a chance to report on all of it.
- bdhess 10y ago> They have leaked information that mass media would otherwise not have been anywhere close to exposing. Is there a specific case you're thinking of? For instance, with the DNC leaks, or with Chelsea Manning's leaks, I believe that the information relevant to the public interest would have been disclosed by any reputable major news outlet (NYT, WashPo, ...) that received it, so long as its authenticity could be verified. I prefer that leakers go to traditional journalists (à la Snowden) rather than WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has a track record of creating collateral damage with its disclosures; for example, exposing SSNs and credit card numbers of people who happened to be donors to the DNC and who were otherwise uninvolved with the shenanigans going on. A responsible, ethical journalist would take care to exclude personal information that is tangential to the actual public interest.
- mattlevan 10y agoTo be fair, Assange doesn't seem to release personally identifying information because of malice, but rather his stated fear of the leaks being thrown out in court due to WikiLeaks tampering. He purposefully releases documents in full to prevent evidence-related loopholes closed in court.
- vkou 10y agoIf intentions were horses, beggars would be eating steak. Impact matters - magical thinking does not. What was the actual, observable impact of unabridged Wikileaks documents in court cases?
- douche 10y agoI believe the expression is wish in one hand, and shit in the other; see which one fills up first
- 6stringmerc 10y agoPerhaps, but it is also tainted with, to me, inexplicable craving for attention using methods that aren't aligned with the espoused higher calling of Wikileaks - as in the Sony hack content. That, to me, significantly damaged the remaining credibility of the organization. It may not resonate the same way for everyone, that's fine, I just sincerely disliked that situation.
- DominikR 10y ago> That, to me, significantly damaged the remaining credibility of the organization. WikiLeaks is a media organisation so it will crave for attention as all media does. But please name one single case in which data released by WikiLeaks was bogus. On the other hand I could bring up hundreds of cases where main stream media has released fake information. So how exactly do you decide who has credibility and who does not?
- mattlevan 10y agoWikiLeaks maintains credibility by being solely and entirely funded by individual contributions from the public.
- bdhess 10y agoI don't even understand how you can claim that. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704554104575436231926853198 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487045541045754362...