5 ms·
Massaging what? Which agenda? Don't they just usually release a dump of whatever information they have which is as close to transparent and impartial facts as y
by mladenkovacevic 10y ago
Massaging what? Which agenda? Don't they just usually release a dump of whatever information they have which is as close to transparent and impartial facts as you can get, but it's also exactly what most people criticize about them.
Generally, people prefer the leaker-journalist relationship, where the journalist is careful not to release info that would be damaging to individuals, or not relevant to whatever story they're trying to cover.
Your particular criticism doesn't apply here and it seems like you just don't like Wikileaks for one reason or another so you wanted to write a disparaging sentence about them.
- Mc_Big_G 10y agoDon't they just usually release a dump of whatever information they have That's what I'm suggesting they do now, but they aren't. Your particular criticism doesn't apply here That's your opinion. and it seems like you just don't like Wikileaks for one reason or another I listed my reasons.
- wfo 10y agoAssange has explicitly stated a goal for the organization is to harm Hillary Clinton, out of revenge for her coming after him during her time as Secretary of State. And obviously here, they are trying to plan their info dump to maximize the damage it does to her political campaign. They do not just blindly dump information to the ether, they sit and wait and dump information that is the most damaging at the most opportune time. Whether or not you think they're doing public good probably depends on your perception of Hillary Clinton and how much you care about the collateral damage they cause but don't pretend they don't have an agenda.
- sqeaky 10y ago> Whether or not you think they're doing public good probably depends on your perception of Hillary Clinton This implies that one builds a perception, then evaluates information in that context. Many people do this and it is sad. We should be using information to evaluate, and not our preconceived notions. The only way Assange has "damaging" information for either candidate is if those candidate did something wrong and covered it up. Shouldn't we the information (once vetted) to evaluate our next president?
- sushisource 10y agoOh, ok, so if we just pretend that all humans are perfectly objective then it's not an issue? Ridiculous.
- wfo 10y agoAll humans have perceptions of the way things are -- based on facts, anecdotes, culture, emotions, personal experience, intellectual discussion, reading. When a human being hears something, of course it's colored by their pre-prepared understanding. To a human without a pre-built perception and context with which to evaluate it, their evaluation of information about Clinton would be "Who is Clinton? What is information? How am I speaking even though I don't understand language?" And yes information is usually damning because of bad things that were done (ignoring the frequent instances where this is not the case, like someone who votes against the "stop child porn [and also eradicate half the bill of rights] act") but Wikileaks has an opportunity to leak this information when there is time to research, discuss, fully understand the data (months ago) or at the last possible second where it will have the most sensational impact with the sole purpose of turning the election instead of informing anyone, with minimal time to vet, discuss, understand, make sense of the results. That is now.
- rconti 10y agoIn the past they did. Now they're staging releases for effect and political gain.
- jshevek 10y agoYou are correct, and this is a cultural issue which goes far beyond this one poster.