4 ms·

I think this is a fair article, and no hatchet job. The writer has decided not to like Assange from working with him and experience. Some pull-outs that show

I think this is a fair article, and no hatchet job. The writer has decided not to like Assange from working with him and experience. Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship : 'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.' 'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.' 'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.' ' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'

rahrahrah 10y ago
> But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  And the highlight point is that someone can use that to provide a very one sided perspective if they only provide WikiLeaks one side of the story.
  - rahrahrah 10y ago
    Someone gets a leaks about something that the government of Haiti is doing. So they can't publish it unless they have something equally bad about every single government on the planet? You have to go find 200+ other leaks, only then you can publish them altogether, because otherwise it would be one-sided. What a stupid argument. Think, don't just repeat talking points.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      You are ignoring the point. All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals. Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
      - rahrahrah 10y ago
        > All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        I don't think we're going to ever be speaking on the same plane of reason in this conversation.
- aeturnum 10y ago
  The risk of the wikileaks project is that it gets manipulated by the governments they seek to reveal. Journalists generally insist on a level of access and autonomy when publishing a story because it ensures that they understand as much of the picture as possible before talking about it. By giving up that editorial control, they cede it to whomever provides them with documents. It's entirely possible they'll receive leaks that leave out compromising information about the leaker, or fake documents to impune an opponent. If the problem with the mainstream media is that they just toe the line given to them by the US government, then wikileaks risks toe'ing a line they aren't aware of.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Well, if those awkward questions concern the authenticity of the documents, and WikiLeaks wants to provide a journalistic-like service to the world, then WikiLeaks should ask those awkward questions. If WikilLeaks doesn't care about the authenticity of what it publishes, then what is its goal?
  - saalweachter 10y ago
    To impose a secrecy tax on conspiratorial organizations. [1] Even if the documents are misinformation, publishing them damages the ability of the organization to carry on its conspiratorial activities, eg, make and carry out secret plans. Internal, private communications (eg, emails), a powerful tool, also have a PR liability. Secrecy tax. [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
  - rahrahrah 10y ago
    WikiLeaks has a very good track record in that respect. Nothing they've ever published has been claimed to have been fake, so I'd say it seem they're doing a good job, let them keep doing it.
- mcv 10y ago
  > That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems. It didn't start out as a site for unfounded gossip about politicians. It started out to call out and address censorship. Then the Manning leak turned it into addressing government crimes, and only now is it suddenly about dirt on specific people.

rahrahrah 10y ago

> But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
And the highlight point is that someone can use that to provide a very one sided perspective if they only provide WikiLeaks one side of the story.
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  Someone gets a leaks about something that the government of Haiti is doing. So they can't publish it unless they have something equally bad about every single government on the planet? You have to go find 200+ other leaks, only then you can publish them altogether, because otherwise it would be one-sided. What a stupid argument. Think, don't just repeat talking points.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    You are ignoring the point. All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals. Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
    - rahrahrah 10y ago
      > All I am saying is that if you're a biased actor, such as say... Russia... a party that publishes everything they get is extremely easy to abuse. And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        I don't think we're going to ever be speaking on the same plane of reason in this conversation.
aeturnum 10y ago
The risk of the wikileaks project is that it gets manipulated by the governments they seek to reveal. Journalists generally insist on a level of access and autonomy when publishing a story because it ensures that they understand as much of the picture as possible before talking about it. By giving up that editorial control, they cede it to whomever provides them with documents. It's entirely possible they'll receive leaks that leave out compromising information about the leaker, or fake documents to impune an opponent. If the problem with the mainstream media is that they just toe the line given to them by the US government, then wikileaks risks toe'ing a line they aren't aware of.
Frondo 10y ago
Well, if those awkward questions concern the authenticity of the documents, and WikiLeaks wants to provide a journalistic-like service to the world, then WikiLeaks should ask those awkward questions. If WikilLeaks doesn't care about the authenticity of what it publishes, then what is its goal?
- saalweachter 10y ago
  To impose a secrecy tax on conspiratorial organizations. [1] Even if the documents are misinformation, publishing them damages the ability of the organization to carry on its conspiratorial activities, eg, make and carry out secret plans. Internal, private communications (eg, emails), a powerful tool, also have a PR liability. Secrecy tax. [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  WikiLeaks has a very good track record in that respect. Nothing they've ever published has been claimed to have been fake, so I'd say it seem they're doing a good job, let them keep doing it.
mcv 10y ago
> That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems. It didn't start out as a site for unfounded gossip about politicians. It started out to call out and address censorship. Then the Manning leak turned it into addressing government crimes, and only now is it suddenly about dirt on specific people.