4 ms·

The e-mails don't have to be altered. Russians just have to make sure they get the data, filter out stuff they don't like leaving neutral and desired content an

by akytt 10y ago

The e-mails don't have to be altered. Russians just have to make sure they get the data, filter out stuff they don't like leaving neutral and desired content and the publish the data in the right time accompanied by a specific media coverage so it gets noticed. This is information warfare. A statement that a body specifically not subject to any self-regulation mechanisms and unknown data sources (that has hurt people before, remember the Turkish leaks) is somehow more trustworthy than media, that has ages of ethical and regulatory history? Of course you have to think of what you were told, of course you need to balance your sources with al jazeera, bbc etc. But Wikileaks fits too snugly into both russian agenda and ideology (everybody is lying and our blatant fabrications ate therefore as much truth as anything) to ignore.

meowface 10y ago
Wikileaks may be following a Russian agenda (due to shared goals; enemy of my enemy is my friend), but what do you mean by "blatant fabrications"? Wikileaks hyperbolized the marketing about some of the emails, but never once fabricated anything that I'm aware of.
rdtsc 10y ago
> But Wikileaks fits too snugly into both russian agenda Agree it does. And if I had to pick a country not to like (or rather I'd say a government) Russia would be it. My family has tangibly been hurt by them. And I'd like to blame them, but the whole "it is the Russians" excuse is a bit too much. This seems to be like a classical PR technique of deflection. And it was pushed too far by Hillary's campaign and the rest of the mass media. When they overemphasize something, it is probably a lie and I know to look the other way. As for hacking the email server, I would say Russian did it, but probably any state actor which were moderately advanced probably got into it. If they knew the Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the world had a private server and didn't try to hack into it, whoever was doing "hacking" should have been fired probably. > has ages of ethical and regulatory history? Unfortunately how mass media has behaved, I put their ethical and trustworthiness below Wikileaks at this point. > you need to balance your sources with al jazeera, bbc etc. Yap I do that. I found in general, media is a bit more trustworthy if they don't have an inherent conflict of interest. For example Al Jazeera is not to be trusted with any news from ME or especially close to Qatar for example. Who do you listen to? Is BBC a pretty good source?
- reverend 10y ago
  Unfortunately it seems that BBC have an axe to grind with former colonies such as India[1], so they're not entirely objective on news related to those areas. [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-BBC-publish-more-negative-news-about-India https://www.quora.com/Why-does-BBC-publish-more-negative-new...

by akytt 10y ago

meowface 10y ago

Wikileaks may be following a Russian agenda (due to shared goals; enemy of my enemy is my friend), but what do you mean by "blatant fabrications"? Wikileaks hyperbolized the marketing about some of the emails, but never once fabricated anything that I'm aware of.

rdtsc 10y ago

> But Wikileaks fits too snugly into both russian agenda Agree it does. And if I had to pick a country not to like (or rather I'd say a government) Russia would be it. My family has tangibly been hurt by them. And I'd like to blame them, but the whole "it is the Russians" excuse is a bit too much. This seems to be like a classical PR technique of deflection. And it was pushed too far by Hillary's campaign and the rest of the mass media. When they overemphasize something, it is probably a lie and I know to look the other way. As for hacking the email server, I would say Russian did it, but probably any state actor which were moderately advanced probably got into it. If they knew the Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the world had a private server and didn't try to hack into it, whoever was doing "hacking" should have been fired probably. > has ages of ethical and regulatory history? Unfortunately how mass media has behaved, I put their ethical and trustworthiness below Wikileaks at this point. > you need to balance your sources with al jazeera, bbc etc. Yap I do that. I found in general, media is a bit more trustworthy if they don't have an inherent conflict of interest. For example Al Jazeera is not to be trusted with any news from ME or especially close to Qatar for example. Who do you listen to? Is BBC a pretty good source?

reverend 10y ago
Unfortunately it seems that BBC have an axe to grind with former colonies such as India[1], so they're not entirely objective on news related to those areas. [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-BBC-publish-more-negative-news-about-India https://www.quora.com/Why-does-BBC-publish-more-negative-new...