It's troubling that instead of coming right out and saying that Ecuador cut Assange's internet access, they said that "state actors" did, knowing people would b

It's troubling that instead of coming right out and saying that Ecuador cut Assange's internet access, they said that "state actors" did, knowing people would blame the U.S. government (as many did in that thread). For an organization that's supposed to be about openness, they seem more than willing to hide information to manipulate people. It's troublesome that this article which actual has the information about who cut the internet access is dropping off the front page much faster than the previous article which left people with the wrong impression. This is an old tactic; generate headlines by insinuating something, and most people will have moved on to something else when the correction comes. The result is that most people are left with the false impression, even after the facts come out. It's troublesome that the reaction many people have to their conspiracy theories being proved false are to shrug and say that this doesn't change anything. "If the Clinton campaign didn't get the CIA to do this, then the U.S. government must have pushed the Ecuadorians to do this" or "It was perfectly reasonable to assume a conspiracy based on no evidence because the government does things like this all the time." If proof that your conspiracy theory was based on nothing doesn't trigger any kind of self-reflection or at least admittance of error, then it seems like your world view isn't influenced by facts. So yes, I'm troubled by several aspects of this.