4 ms·

I think the more mainstream media sources have the Trump stuff covered already. Since they have done a poor job releasing and publicizing information on Clinton

by choko 10y ago

I think the more mainstream media sources have the Trump stuff covered already. Since they have done a poor job releasing and publicizing information on Clinton, I think wikileaks is providing a valuable service. I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?" The difference is they're profit generating machines we all know is bullshit where Wikileaks claims to be an activist organization fighting to get the truth out to take down business and government corruption. Then gets really focused on one political party to benefit of another corrupt party. I definitely will call that out. It's fine if they want to be just another biased, ego/profit-centric outlet. We'll just add them to list of sources, factor in bias, and try to determine truth. People will just have to stop treating it like it's trustworthy or an activist organization.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Bias is acceptable if you're earning a profit? The "that we all know is bullshit" bit is highly debatable, and doesn't really reflect the reality of news consumption for most Americans [1]. How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency? And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too? Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files, just to avoid the possibility of perceived bias? 1. http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? " A consistent series of attacks focusing on the Left while the Right is doing lots of damage makes them activists against the Left specifically. Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business. " No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency?" It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist. "And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too?" He was before that. Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. These days he seems to be driven by ego and/or hate of government. His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business. "Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files" Now you're just making stuff up. That's nothing like a supposedly neutral organization covering two, known-dirty candidates who are constantly pulling stunts.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      > Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business. If you perceive the Right or Left to be the greater threat given the information that you have, why do you have any obligation to report on them equally? IE how 75-100% of CNNs front page is anti-Trump stories on any given day. > It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist. Why? > Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. Fundraising doesn't mean profit. 501c3s also fund raise. As I'm sure you and basically everyone else on this site is aware, running an org that's active in multiple countries over the course of a decade isn't free. > His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business. The current Podesta emails somehow aren't? Have you read them at all? For instance, the stories about Podesta's dealings in Russia [1]. This email [2] includes an attached legal bill regarding formation of Leonidio LLC. Is that not government and business corruption? 1. http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/how-hillarys-campaign-chief-hid-money-from-russia/ http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/how-hillarys-campaign-chief-hid-m... 2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13946 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13946

by choko 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"I assume since many mainstream sources show a strong bias, they also lost credibility with you?" The difference is they're profit generating machines we all know is bullshit where Wikileaks claims to be an activist organization fighting to get the truth out to take down business and government corruption. Then gets really focused on one political party to benefit of another corrupt party. I definitely will call that out. It's fine if they want to be just another biased, ego/profit-centric outlet. We'll just add them to list of sources, factor in bias, and try to determine truth. People will just have to stop treating it like it's trustworthy or an activist organization.

rfrank 10y ago
Bias is acceptable if you're earning a profit? The "that we all know is bullshit" bit is highly debatable, and doesn't really reflect the reality of news consumption for most Americans [1]. How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency? And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too? Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files, just to avoid the possibility of perceived bias? 1. http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "How does releasing information on one party and not the other invalidate their position as activists? " A consistent series of attacks focusing on the Left while the Right is doing lots of damage makes them activists against the Left specifically. Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business. " No information on Republicans means WikiLeaks no longer cares about fighting corruption and increasing transparency?" It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist. "And that they're somehow profit driven because of that too?" He was before that. Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. These days he seems to be driven by ego and/or hate of government. His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business. "Should they have looked for information on all of the detainees at guantanamo when they released the guantanamo files" Now you're just making stuff up. That's nothing like a supposedly neutral organization covering two, known-dirty candidates who are constantly pulling stunts.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    > Different than activists for civil rights or honest government/business. If you perceive the Right or Left to be the greater threat given the information that you have, why do you have any obligation to report on them equally? IE how 75-100% of CNNs front page is anti-Trump stories on any given day. > It's odd that we see revelations and reports on both of them consistently from groups like The Guardian and The Intercept but not this activist. Why? > Constantly fund-raising then charging people for little Assange parties. Fundraising doesn't mean profit. 501c3s also fund raise. As I'm sure you and basically everyone else on this site is aware, running an org that's active in multiple countries over the course of a decade isn't free. > His leaks and reports in the old days were a mix of evil government and business. The current Podesta emails somehow aren't? Have you read them at all? For instance, the stories about Podesta's dealings in Russia [1]. This email [2] includes an attached legal bill regarding formation of Leonidio LLC. Is that not government and business corruption? 1. http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/how-hillarys-campaign-chief-hid-money-from-russia/ http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/how-hillarys-campaign-chief-hid-m... 2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13946 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13946