4 ms·

They're coming on thick and strong with attempts to discredit the source because the source is seriously lacking in credibility. I'd already spotted and comment

by makomk 10y ago

They're coming on thick and strong with attempts to discredit the source because the source is seriously lacking in credibility. I'd already spotted and commented on the bizarre UN shenanigans earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737648 The fact that the sole source is a dating company press release in which they claim to be a United Nations signatory and member, and that they accuse the UN of conspiring with Assange and the Bahamas police, should've been enough justification not to take everything as gospel. Unfortunately, Daily Kos are keen to attack Assange and not so keen on fact checking and research, as are Mrs Clinton's Twitter supporters.

rosser 10y ago
There's a material difference between questioning a sources's credibility and trying to discredit it.
cryoshon 10y ago
>They're coming on thick and strong with attempts to discredit the source because the source is seriously lacking in credibility the way they could do this correctly is to contradict assange's claims with evidence... do that, and if their evidence is valid, assange's claims collapse. but they aren't doing that; they can't do that. here is the recipe upcoming from the clinton campaign: 1. attack source 2. escalate attacks on source 3. deny claims of source categorically 4. deny context of facts that source puts forth 5. deny specifics of facts that source puts forth 6. deny involvement of high level people 7. throw scapegoats 8. deny witting involvement of high level people 9. admit item numbers 3 through 8, sequentially, as separate steps 10. media "loses attention" of the story before reaching the point where high level people admit that the allegations of the source are correct this cycle will take a while, maybe a year or so.
imron 10y ago
I agree with you completely. My comment was written after discussing this elsewhere on the internet where the context was that people are trying to discredit wikileaks and Assange as a source. I've edited my post to reflect that.

by makomk 10y ago

rosser 10y ago

There's a material difference between questioning a sources's credibility and trying to discredit it.

cryoshon 10y ago

>They're coming on thick and strong with attempts to discredit the source because the source is seriously lacking in credibility the way they could do this correctly is to contradict assange's claims with evidence... do that, and if their evidence is valid, assange's claims collapse. but they aren't doing that; they can't do that. here is the recipe upcoming from the clinton campaign: 1. attack source 2. escalate attacks on source 3. deny claims of source categorically 4. deny context of facts that source puts forth 5. deny specifics of facts that source puts forth 6. deny involvement of high level people 7. throw scapegoats 8. deny witting involvement of high level people 9. admit item numbers 3 through 8, sequentially, as separate steps 10. media "loses attention" of the story before reaching the point where high level people admit that the allegations of the source are correct this cycle will take a while, maybe a year or so.

imron 10y ago

I agree with you completely. My comment was written after discussing this elsewhere on the internet where the context was that people are trying to discredit wikileaks and Assange as a source. I've edited my post to reflect that.